Clash of populisms: Why Arvind Kejriwal will not be given space by Modi

Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party advocate a populism that challenges Prime Minister Narendra Modi's own

When the US First Lady, Melania Trump visits a south Delhi government school on Tuesday to attend a “happiness class”, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his former deputy and Education Minister, Sisodia will not be present. It was Manish Sisodia who initiated a “happiness curriculum” in Delhi government schools, a 40 minute break for meditation and outdoor activities to reduce stress among children. Both have been disinvited from the event by the US Embassy, supposedly at the behest of the Central government.

Clearly, despite Arvind Kejriwal’s attempts to explore a working relationship of mutual accommodation with the Modi regime at the Centre, there is no give on the latter’s part. So even if some had begun to fear that Arvind Kejriwal, might cross over to the Dark Side, the refusal of the Centre to agree to even the modicum of a cease-fire should put to rest such apprehensions.

Why would the Modi government want to keep out Arvind Kejriwal from the Melania Trump event in Delhi? The reasons for its unfriendliness are not far to find.

Kejriwal and his party, Aam Adami Party (AAP) advocate a populism that challenges Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s own. In Delhi, AAP’s populism based on delivery of public services has been far more successful. Though Prime Minister Modi’s populism spans a much wider spectrum from welfarism to religious populism, its results have been uneven when applied over the entire country. Conceding ground to Kejriwal would mean admitting the defeat of the Modi model.

When AAP transformed itself from a protest movement against corruption targetting the prevailing political elite, into a political party, its leader Arvind Kejriwal promised to ensure access to public services for the citizens without any mediating bureaucratic corruption. The promise brought him to power three times, the last two with an overwhelming majority.

During his second term, Kejriwal’s government was effective in introducing some equity in services particularly in education and health. By now he had redefined his main constituency as the urban poor and slum dwellers. The much broader constituency with which he had begun his politics moved into the background as perhaps he thought its middle class component was politically fickle and could not be trusted.

He addressed himself to those living in urban slums and “unauthorised colonies”, who formed nearly 40 per cent of Delhi voters. They were the primary and target beneficiaries of his welfare measures which included free electricity, free water, free medical clinics and upgrading of government secondary schools. These measures symbolised the redistribution of resources in favour of the less privileged. The welfare schemes also caught the imagination by citizens who although not direct beneficiaries exhibited an empathy, selflessness and altruism to identify with them. Post-Independence, successive Indian governments had focussed on governmental welfare services and redistribution but Kejriwal delivered them efficiently.

There are many similarities with the populisms of Kejriwal and Prime Minister Modi. Both spoke vociferously against the existing political order and the compromised nature of the elite which controlled it in previous regimes.They both assume that they speak for the large majority which has voted for them. 
 

This allows them to affect a self-righteousness where they would much rather be allowed to take quick and continuous decisions than be engaged in discussion or have their policies questioned. Hence the label of “doer” they both use to define their political style.

If their decisions are always justified as the will of the majority, it leaves little space for the opinions of the minority. Consider, for example, what the would be the reaction of the AAP leader if a section of the voters begin to ask why they ought to be subsidising welfare schemes of which they are not the beneficiaries. And this may well happen as the burden of subsidies increases, or if people percieve them as reducing their share of fixed  public goods.

Prime Minister Modi’s blatantly majoritarian ideology is an integral part of his populism justified also as the will of the majority. Populism is not necessarily always about about welfare. In Europe, for example, it has fed and continues to feed discrimination based on race, ethnicity, colour, religion and language as well.

While Modi’s populism is not without some welfarist measures such as free LPG for cooking, national pension and insurance schemes, employment and skill-imparting schemes and cheap housing, it is increasingly focussed on majoritarian programmes. These include preparing the social and legal consensus for building a Ram Temple at Ayodhya, the Citizenship Amendment Act, a National Population Register and a National Register of Citizens, projecting India as ‘Hindu Homeland’, criminalising instant triple talaq, and banning cow slaughter as well as beef consumption. It even includes a seat permanently reserved for Lord Shiva on a train between Ujjain and Varanasi.

In both cases, their populism based on the will of the majority is embodied in their individual leaderships – a ‘Caeserism’. Neither Prime Minister Modi nor his party can countenance the victory of Kejriwal’s populism over theirs. Even if the Delhi results are not easily replicable in larger states they are unlikely to tolerate a challenger or give him space for co-existence after he has given them a bloody nose.

Prime Minister Modi is banking on his brand of ideological majoritarianism to trump welfarism in states like Bihar and West Bengal. It has proved to be an effective instrument of electoral mobilisation earlier. Religious identity has helped him beat, time and time again, caste fractiousness. He cannot abandon the religious core of his populism for pure welfarism of the Kejriwal type.

While Kejriwal’s populism is trying to course-correct a dysfunctional democracy, Prime Minister Modi’s populism thrives because of the dysfunctionality of our democracy. There cannot be any give and take between the two.

Chief Minister Kejriwal’s best bet may be to keep demons at bay by recitation of the Hanuman Chalisa. He may also find relief in the thought that he is currently not on top of the list of PM Modi’s political adversaries. His attention these days is firmly directed eastwards.

Twitter: @Bharatitis