Rumblings in Aam Aadmi Party — the ethical dilemma

KV Prasad

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 5

Rumblings in the Aam Aadmi Party leading to the exclusion of two founder members Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan from the National Executive (NE) has led many to surmise that there is little to differentiate between the nascent political outfit and other established parties in the country.

Both Yadav and Bhushan have not just been ardent supporters of the AAP, but  also considered to be among the few select brains to steer the party along with its convener and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

What does their exit indicate? Does it mean that the AAP which sprung from an agitation against anti-corruption and later anti-VIP culture does not brook dissent? Does AAP also suffer from absence or lack of inner-party democracy? Or is the fledging AAP still coming to terms with its new found status as a political party which the people backed overwhelming for representing new ideals and freshness in politics?

The answer lies in a bit of all. Fired by idealism and crusade against corruption led to differences this time around during the Delhi elections over selection of some candidates. The Yadav-Bhushan duo was not in agreement with the entire selection. Ironically, realpolitik could be explained as the reason why the AAP leadership chose to stick to the candidates finalised and went with it. Among others factors was winnability, while the internal screening mechanism also gave the go-ahead signal. While both denied to be seen as conscience keepers in the party, their views on occasions reflect the ethical dilemma.

There is another issue of position on contesting elections elsewhere versus the need to consolidate work in Delhi, where people have voted with high hopes. Post-Lok Sabha debacle, the party continues to debate on the issue.

Ahead of the March 4 National Executive meeting where Yadav-Bhushan duo were relieved of their responsibilities, some leaders sought to impress upon the need to be “flexible” since the AAP was now a political party. What it meant for different people was left to individual interpretation.

A day after the meeting where 11 members voted in favour of the exit of Yadav and Bhushan and eight against the resolution, a prominent member of the NE, Mayank Gandhi, chose to make public his views.

“I was taken aback by the resolution of removing them publicly, especially as they themselves were willing to leave. Also, this decision to sack them was against the overwhelming sentiments of volunteers from all over the world,” Gandhi wrote in his blog. He had abstained from voting yesterday.