As Delhi braces for another round of elections, Arvind Kejriwal and the Aam Aadmi Party are at the centre of political discourse, relying on familiar tactics of populism and reactionary narratives. From framing themselves as victims of central government interference to positioning their governance as a unique “Delhi Model”, AAP continues to operate within the framework of derivative politics—which lacks innovation or a coherent vision. Instead, it relies on the appropriation of prevailing sentiments, movements, or crises to remain relevant. While Kejriwal’s media-savvy strategies have helped AAP maintain its foothold, the party’s lack of a substantive, long-term vision beyond opportunistic platforms has raised serious questions about its ideological coherence and ability to provide sustainable governance.
AAP’s inception is rooted in the anti-corruption movement of 2011-2012, which swept across India in response to high-profile corruption scandals during the second term of the UPA government. The movement, initially spearheaded by social activist Anna Hazare, presented an opportunity for Kejriwal to rise to prominence. He swiftly co-opted the movement’s energy, positioning himself as the political face of the anti-corruption fight.
However, from its very beginning, Kejriwal’s approach lacked soundness and ideological depth. The anti-corruption movement was a reaction to a particular crisis, not a coherent, positive vision for governance. Kejriwal’s AAP merely harped on the momentum created by public anger against corruption, using it as a vehicle to win elections in Delhi. While this strategy brought limited electoral success, it failed to provide a substantive foundation for a long-term governance alternative.
Also read: Kejriwal wants RSS to act as jury against BJP. His letter to Bhagwat is calculated mischief
Staying in the news
Kejriwal’s exploitative political approach became even more evident when he adopted anarchic tactics to stay in the spotlight. During his first brief term as Delhi’s Chief Minister from December 2013 to February 2014, he staged a public protest against the central government, claiming interference by the Delhi Police.
As the anti-corruption narrative lost its appeal and the chaos proved unsustainable, Kejriwal and AAP shifted focus once again, this time to an anti-Modi platform. With the rise of Narendra Modi as Prime Minister in 2014, Kejriwal recalibrated his political strategy to position himself as a staunch opponent of the Modi government. This opposition, however, was not rooted in any substantive policy differences or ideological standpoints. Instead, it was yet another opportunistic move—Kejriwal harped onto the national conversation dominated by Modi and used it to keep relevance.
The anti-Modi stance became central to AAP’s strategy. But just like the anti-corruption movement, the anti-Modi plank was reactionary, devoid of any deeper ideological coherence. It was opposition for the sake of opposition, with no vision for what AAP would do differently at a national level. This constant state of reactionary politics has characterised AAP’s journey over the past decade—constantly shifting from one platform to another without ever articulating a clear, forward-looking agenda.
This strategy of disruption can score high in media marketing, but certainly not in politics. Change in politics is often disruptive and welcomed, but only if backed by alternative policies. Prime Minister Modi’s politics has been disruptive, but it won the people’s imagination because of its proven record of policy stability, accomplishment and ideological clarity.
On the contrary, Kejriwal continues his approach of attacking the system without offering any tangible, constructive solutions. This is not the politics of performance; it is the politics of disruption, designed solely to keep him and his party in the news.
As AAP’s politics have unfolded, it has become increasingly clear that the party lacks any ideological coherence beyond its initial anti-corruption plank. While corruption is a critical issue, it cannot form the foundation of a political ideology. Historically, successful political parties draw on more comprehensive visions that encompass economic, social, and cultural dimensions, offering a roadmap for the future.
Anti-corruption, by contrast, is a short-term reaction to a specific set of circumstances. It can galvanise voters in moments of crisis, but it cannot provide the sustained vision needed for long-term governance. Kejriwal’s anti-corruption plank, while effective in the immediate aftermath of the UPA scandals, has since revealed its limitations. As the issue of corruption faded from the national conversation, AAP struggled to redefine its identity and purpose.
The failure of anti-corruption as an ideological base is not unique to AAP. Throughout history, political movements built solely on opposition to corruption have often fizzled out once the initial wave of public anger subsided. Examples include Zambia under President Michael Sata in 2011 and Kenya under Mwai Kibaki in 2002.
A prominent political theorist, Samuel Huntington, in his book Political Order in Changing Societies (1968), discusses the limitations of anti-corruption platforms in developing countries. Huntington argued that corruption, while harmful, is often a symptom of deeper structural issues. He pointed out that focusing solely on anti-corruption in countries with weak political institutions could destabilise the state without addressing the underlying causes of corruption, such as institutional weakness and lack of development.
Governance requires more than just cleaning up corruption; it demands clarity and vision. Politics is not merely about a moralistic agenda of pointing fingers towards wrongdoers or wrongs. It is about ensuring that society thrives in peace, harmony, and prosperity. By failing to develop such a vision, AAP has been left to drift from one reactionary position to another, latching onto whatever issue is most likely to keep it in the public eye.
From anti-corruption and anarchic protests to opposing Modi and offering freebies, Kejriwal’s political strategy has been to react to the prevailing political winds rather than shaping them. As a result, AAP remains ideologically incoherent, trapped in a cycle of opposition without a positive, constructive agenda. AAP risks being remembered not as a party of governance, but as a party of fleeting, derivative politics.
Abhishek is an electrical engineer turned policy professional. He is currently on an academic break to pursue a Mid-Career Master’s in Public Administration (MC-MPA) at the Harvard Kennedy School. He tweets @Abhis_chaudhari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)
What a baseless article! I found almost all information and facts mentioned about AAP wrong. Almost each statement in this article seemed biased. For example the first two paragraphs have many things wrong and here is the details.
AAP follows a welfarism model which most of the developed nations like UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. follow, it is not a tactics of populism. Reactionary is apt for BJP, never for AAP or even Congress. AAP does have a substantive and long-term vision to make India a developed nation and hence its emphasis on citizen-centric policies on education, healthcare, etc. which no other party has been able to do. Although Anna ANDOLAN is headed by Anna Hazare, the real architect of this movement from beginning to end is Kejriwal who gathers not only Anna, but also Kiran Bedi and Prashant Bhushan.
The other paragraphs contain more and more baseless information. It is evident that this author knows very little of AAP, he has just gathered articles about it from GODI media and wrote a baseless essay. In concluding remarks, I state that it is AAP which is working for ensuring that society thrives in peace, harmony, and prosperity, the exact opposite of what this author mentioned.