Most promises made by the AAP are not deliverable in the simplistic forms that they were promised. And the party can’t govern if it chooses to put every deviation to a referendum.
FirstPost, 24 December, 2013
Delhi is orphaned no more. We are going to have a government. It took the Aam Aadmi Party two long weeks to decide that they would take the plunge. The AAP’s pre-election stand was equivocally against joining hands with either the Congress or the BJP. Its choice was to stick to that position or respect the overall mandate for change. It was a difficult choice and the AAP leadership refused to be responsible for a decision either way.
While many thought the so-called referendum was a ploy to legitimise the party’s temptation to taste power, others argued that such a fundamental decision was best left to the people. This dramatic shift to direct democracy has placed the AAP on a moral ground high above the grassroots it claims its legitimacy from. Two legendary Vaishnava scholars, Roop and Sanatana Goswami, had realised the trappings of zealous humility that made the former too fastidious and arrogant to remember the very purport of being humble. Penance followed but that was Vrindavan in the 16th century.
In contemporary Delhi, the AAP's high moral ground fits perfectly with the party's popular stand against so-called VIP-ism symbolised by red beacons etc (though there is not much to sacrifice here as Delhi’s ministers hardly enjoy the privileges lavished on their counterparts in other states). It is necessary to bridge the disconnect between the masses and the political class who tend to govern from pedestals of power. But merely replacing it with such a sanctimonious, some would say defensive or even opportunistic, moral position will not make for better governance.
To form a government or not might have been a momentous dilemma but governance will frequently bring the AAP leadership at a crossroads because most of its promises are just not deliverable in the promised form. While many are suitably abstract – making Delhi safer, for example – and allows the grey area (read elbow room) required for administrative limitations, some are surprisingly specific and non-deliverable as such.
For example, there is enough room for rationalising power tariff after a thorough auditing but a flat 50% reduction in bills will be impossible. Any rationalisation will require plugging widespread power theft and reorganising tariff slabs. Supplying 700 litre of water to every household for free and ending the tanker-raj will require cutting down supply to the VIP zones, relaying of leaking pipelines and building a delivery network in vast areas where there is none. Otherwise, the city’s sinking aquifers will be drained faster. And till these issues are assessed and resolved, the tankers that cater to much of the parched city will have to remain in business.
So, will there be a referendum for each of these deviations (read compromises) every time the new government finds that it can’t fulfill in entirety what it promised? Will the aam aadmi, not the party, endorse a crackdown on theft, not by the mafia but thousands of households that anyway ensure their unlimited share of ‘free’ (discounting the bribe) power and water? And will the AAP, thriving on support from three-wheeler owners/drivers, ever get a verdict from its cadres to crack the whip on the errant fleet of over-charging autowallahs involved in the most brazen corruption on Delhi roads?
Even if we agree that the masses are likely to behave more responsibly when empowered, who will foot the bill for holding frequent referendums that have a tendency to become never-end-ums when dealing with issues that involve more than a simple yes or no? Or will the AAP government take key decisions on the basis of SMS polls? Well, that may be fine for a political outfit (and telecom companies) but we will certainly need organised polling involving the Election Commission if state issues are to be put up for referendums.
Expenses apart, referendums globally are often the last resort of a government low on confidence and reluctant to risk its future by doing what it thinks is right. In short, it is a symbol of political dithering. Out there to clean the Augean stables of institutionalised corruption, the AAP will need more than a few brooms. And the party does not exactly have time on its side.
Besides, if everything is to be decided by the people and governance becomes simply a matter of implementing those decisions, bureaucrats will be good enough to run the state or the country. A true politician's unenviable job is to provide leadership. It is about creating confidence among the people that s/he has the integrity, wisdom and vision to decide for them. And also having the courage to face the consequence of those decisions, particularly the unpopular ones, made in the interest of the people.
Arvind Kejriwal is a most welcome break in our muddled politics that has for too long failed to offer any real alternative. He deserves his turn to deliver and it is grossly unfair to write off him or his brand of politics at this early stage. But from moral grounds so high, it is difficult to stay rooted. Kejriwal the rebel must now become Kejriwal the ruler. No, it is not a dirty word. He must tell his party members and supporters that having elected him their leader, they must now let him lead. The last time these words were spoken, Nelson Mandela the president was born.
FirstPost, 24 December, 2013
 |
| AAP's moral grounds are higher than the elitist pedestals it shuns |
While many thought the so-called referendum was a ploy to legitimise the party’s temptation to taste power, others argued that such a fundamental decision was best left to the people. This dramatic shift to direct democracy has placed the AAP on a moral ground high above the grassroots it claims its legitimacy from. Two legendary Vaishnava scholars, Roop and Sanatana Goswami, had realised the trappings of zealous humility that made the former too fastidious and arrogant to remember the very purport of being humble. Penance followed but that was Vrindavan in the 16th century.
In contemporary Delhi, the AAP's high moral ground fits perfectly with the party's popular stand against so-called VIP-ism symbolised by red beacons etc (though there is not much to sacrifice here as Delhi’s ministers hardly enjoy the privileges lavished on their counterparts in other states). It is necessary to bridge the disconnect between the masses and the political class who tend to govern from pedestals of power. But merely replacing it with such a sanctimonious, some would say defensive or even opportunistic, moral position will not make for better governance.
To form a government or not might have been a momentous dilemma but governance will frequently bring the AAP leadership at a crossroads because most of its promises are just not deliverable in the promised form. While many are suitably abstract – making Delhi safer, for example – and allows the grey area (read elbow room) required for administrative limitations, some are surprisingly specific and non-deliverable as such.
For example, there is enough room for rationalising power tariff after a thorough auditing but a flat 50% reduction in bills will be impossible. Any rationalisation will require plugging widespread power theft and reorganising tariff slabs. Supplying 700 litre of water to every household for free and ending the tanker-raj will require cutting down supply to the VIP zones, relaying of leaking pipelines and building a delivery network in vast areas where there is none. Otherwise, the city’s sinking aquifers will be drained faster. And till these issues are assessed and resolved, the tankers that cater to much of the parched city will have to remain in business.
So, will there be a referendum for each of these deviations (read compromises) every time the new government finds that it can’t fulfill in entirety what it promised? Will the aam aadmi, not the party, endorse a crackdown on theft, not by the mafia but thousands of households that anyway ensure their unlimited share of ‘free’ (discounting the bribe) power and water? And will the AAP, thriving on support from three-wheeler owners/drivers, ever get a verdict from its cadres to crack the whip on the errant fleet of over-charging autowallahs involved in the most brazen corruption on Delhi roads?
Even if we agree that the masses are likely to behave more responsibly when empowered, who will foot the bill for holding frequent referendums that have a tendency to become never-end-ums when dealing with issues that involve more than a simple yes or no? Or will the AAP government take key decisions on the basis of SMS polls? Well, that may be fine for a political outfit (and telecom companies) but we will certainly need organised polling involving the Election Commission if state issues are to be put up for referendums.
Expenses apart, referendums globally are often the last resort of a government low on confidence and reluctant to risk its future by doing what it thinks is right. In short, it is a symbol of political dithering. Out there to clean the Augean stables of institutionalised corruption, the AAP will need more than a few brooms. And the party does not exactly have time on its side.
Besides, if everything is to be decided by the people and governance becomes simply a matter of implementing those decisions, bureaucrats will be good enough to run the state or the country. A true politician's unenviable job is to provide leadership. It is about creating confidence among the people that s/he has the integrity, wisdom and vision to decide for them. And also having the courage to face the consequence of those decisions, particularly the unpopular ones, made in the interest of the people.
Arvind Kejriwal is a most welcome break in our muddled politics that has for too long failed to offer any real alternative. He deserves his turn to deliver and it is grossly unfair to write off him or his brand of politics at this early stage. But from moral grounds so high, it is difficult to stay rooted. Kejriwal the rebel must now become Kejriwal the ruler. No, it is not a dirty word. He must tell his party members and supporters that having elected him their leader, they must now let him lead. The last time these words were spoken, Nelson Mandela the president was born.
No comments:
Post a Comment