Arvind Kejriwal still has time to stave off a crisis in the party where, amid public acrimony, two leaders who gave a whole lot of intellectual dimension to the Aam Aadmi Party – Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan – may face the prospect of being asked to leave the Political Affairs Committee.
Even if it were simply a reallocation of work, the message that would go out, is that the top tier of the party is unable to hold together.
All he needs to do is bring in the major actors in the unseemly dramatics being played out in Delhi, and since he is unwell, to his home, have a quiet word with them and resolve the crisis. That would reaffirm his leadership mettle.
Kejriwal needs to step in
The contending sides are not asking for his ouster, Yadav and Bhushan are not going to arrive with knives hidden under their robes. They are reasonable people but are seeking an embedding of principles which would sustain the party’s differentiator.
The word bhagoda, which went missing after the massive pro-AAP verdict, is returning to the public domain. Scroll.in has already used it in the headline today when analysing the developments today: “The Daily Fix: Bhagoda? Kejriwal to go on leave while the dirty work begins at big AAP meet.”
His intervention would have been crucial; he cannot remain aloof by tweeting, “I refuse to be drawn in this ugly battle”.
The ongoing battle is indeed ugly, where the chief spokesperson, Yadav, is being hit on a daily basis by a barrage of accusations including the revelations of a sting of a reporter to “expose” him of anti-party attitude. By his silence, Kejriwal has only allowed the battle between those who support his supremacy and those who want a complete democratisation of the decision-making process to escalate. It could even imply complicity.
Democratisation is not an evil and democracy – transparent, felt, and purposeful – is what the AAP is all about.
The votaries of that are not to be seen as mischief-makers. In his absence from the crucial meeting today, he allows what can be called the “dogs of war” at the top tiers of the party. When the party, despite the election mandate, is still forming, trying to get in place systems that should make it different from others, this aloofness is dangerous. Dangerous to the party’s founding principles.
People who reposed such faith as they did by voting in a huge mandate would be aghast at the developments that have unravelled so far. A Times of India report that it could “lead AAP towards self-destruction” is an eventuality that should not be ignored.
The party had regained confidence of the voters once; it cannot do so every time. If it thinks a risk can be taken now because of the majority it has, it is ill-advised.
Voters are becoming touchy these days, and the assumption that the party can sustain the faith of the cadre and the voters by a good government may be misplaced. Kejriwal’s governance model has borough level activism at is core and requires the involvement of all members elected to the legislature. They cannot spur activism with a discredited level of leadership who fought for partisan purposes – supremacy of Kejriwal above everyone else.
0 comments:
Post a Comment