Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Why Congress, BJP Don’t Get AAP: Ignorance Or Hubris?

By Kajol Singh | INN Live

ANALYSIS The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) victory in Delhi, and the party itself, is an unprecedented phenomenon in Indian politics. The common people of Delhi got it absolutely loud and clear and sent them to power; but unfortunately, the BJP, Congress are still in denial. 

First was their dismissal of the AAP as a band of overzealous amateurs, apolitical anarchists or even a “B-team”, but the party’s victory stunned them; then came muddling reputation and enlightened predictions. And finally when everything is over, the attempt is to drag them into the same morass that they call politics. BJP was the worst in this game, particularly post-results. 
The party’s otherwise soft-spoken CM-candidate appeared extremely civil and charitable when he wanted the AAP to form the government, but when it did form the government, he - along with his party leaders - saw it as an unholy alliance with the Congress. The Congress, on the other hand, suddenly changed tact and said its support was not unconditional.

Both, meanwhile, continued to make fun of AAP’s manifesto as impractical and populist. The old fox of wily politics, the Congress, would have certainly promised support not without expecting a certain failure of the AAP sooner than later.The reason of the traditional parties not getting it, as party’s ideologue Yogendra Yadav pointed out in a discussion on NDTV on Monday night, is that they are looking at the new phenomenon through the old prism. 

They are looking for elements in AAP, that they think are essential for playing politics - a politics of subterfuge, aggrandisement, violence, caste, corruption, and top-down approach to governance. Evidently, an unmissable feature of what the Congress, the BJP and the people who share their philosophies said to AAP was simple - their knowledge and experience of the past. All their views, predictions and ideas for way forward were deeply rooted in a past that they co-created and their own version of politics that drive Indian democracy. 

In contrast, what the AAP successfully communicated in Delhi was a completely different paradigm - a politics of change. The people of Delhi obviously loved it while enthusiasts in the rest of the country are eagerly signing up. This is a huge clash of not just ideas, but political philosophies. The old and the established form that is rooted in the past versus the one that is driven by hope, transformation and results. 

The new phenomenon is completely driven by a zeal that is rooted in hope, when everything in the country looked absolutely hopeless (Manmohan Singh, mega-scams, land-deals, communal clashes, political violence...). In their Delhi spectacle, the AAP has shown that if you are seriously hopeful, people are ready to take risks for a transformation. 

The BJP and the Congress will not get it, because they have a huge baggage of the past. If they change ways, they will collapse like a pack of cards. Rensis Likert is a name that transformative leadership specialists across the world are familiar with. Although originally he appealed to organisational management, for more than a decade this American organisational psychologist’s leadership model has found considerable resonance and applicability in governance and human development. 

In Likert’s System 4 theory, there are four types of leadership: exploitative authoritative, benevolent authoritative, consultative, and participative. The most common in Indian politics, obviously, is the first and the next, the benevolent authoritative. Most of India’s successful politicians swing between these two categories. The new set of leaders, who have demonstrated repeat performances in recent elections can at best be the latter - the benevolent authoritative. 

What has been completely missing in India were the last two categories, which are essentially people’s leaders - consultative and participative. Consultative is still top-down and the decision-making is still centralised, but it’s marked by a genuine effort to consult with people. The best case scenario is the participative leadership. It makes use of participatory methods, and people across various levels feel they are together and contribute to the process of decision making. 

This is where Arvind Kejriwal, Yogendra Yadav and their AAP scored big. While the leaders of the traditional model of politics (exploitative authoritative and benevolent authoritative) scoffed at them in arrogance arising out of the lack of options of people, the AAP showed them how a participatory leadership can work. It’s not surprising that people absorbed the idea so easily, participated in it and supported it. 

One doesn’t need a double-blind controlled study to prove this fact - Delhi election was the biggest field study for this practice anywhere in the world. Porto Alegre in Brazil - where people attempted participatory budgeting - or Pearl River Delta in China’s Guangdong province - where even the Communists tried out participatory development strategies - may not have the scale and impact of Delhi. 

This was big, fast and above all, pure electoral politics in a big, messy country. During the entire process of party formation, strategy development, selection of candidates and electioneering, Kejriwal kept referring to true participation by people, without ever jargonising it. Obviously, he and his comrades were doing it right - otherwise, the people would have rejected it. 

He did the same when he went back to people to seek their opinion when pressure mounted on the party to form the government, including from a mischievous BJP. By its own admission, what the AAP is trying to do is participatory and deliberative democracy. Politicians anchored in the past for their own avarice either don’t want to pursue it or don’t understand it. 

A few years ago, participative democracy would have been logistically difficult, but with the availability of new technologies, the AAP has shown India and the rest of the world that it’s eminently possible. And the secret to this process is going small and going decentralised. When people ask Kejriwal and Yadav, how they will implement it across India, they are betraying their ignorance and their inability to understand transformative forms of leadership and governance. 

Decision making should happen at the local levels, not in Delhi, not even in state capitals. People will naturally participate. Mahatma Gandhi knew it decades ago. Unfortunately both his followers and opponents killed it out of ignorance and hubris. And the AAP has just begun to revive it.

No comments: