Who’s angry over arrest of a CM?

Muted outrage over Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest points to a larger reality: When politics is no longer seen as a public good, it leads to thinning conception of citizenship

DELHI CHIEF MINISTER Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest was months in the making, with him refusing to appear in front of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for nine consecutive summons. When it happened — the arrest of a sitting Opposition Chief Minister in the leadup to a national election — a watershed moment in the history of Indian democracy seemed all too prosaic.

Delhi went about its business as usual. Politicians tweeted their reactions along predictable lines. Courts were moved, with predictable results. Supporters of the BJP and the Opposition argued in various arenas about authoritarianism and corruption. A Whatsapp group of senior public policy and government affairs professionals — a niche set of individuals particularly attuned to and connected with state power — discussed the possibility of traffic jams affecting their day’s programmes. Others reassured that the roads were clear.

It is too soon to predict how this will ultimately play out but some observations are pertinent. First, there’s an unmistakable sense of isolation of the political class. People have opinions about various developments within the political class but as detached observers. The ED raids on Opposition leaders, the freezing of the Congress party’s bank accounts and the arrest of two sitting CMS (Jharkhand CM, Hemant Soren resigned in anticipation) are watched with dispassionate interest — without feeling like these developments have any bearing on their own lives.

It is not difficult to see how we have arrived at this point. Political parties have evolved into closed clubs where the average person has very little visibility in decisionmaking, let alone influence. Moreover, the political class is seen to be self-serving and the basis of the relationship between political parties and people has become transactional, with the expectation of well-defined economic benefits from voting one party or another into power. This is neither a unique nor durable foundation for substantive affiliation between specific political parties, its leaders and the people.

This has a direct impact on the nature of our democracy. Representative democracy is operationalised through political parties. However, if there is a popular disconnect with democracy’s primary institutional intermediary, then it ceases to be seen as a public good. The inevitable result of this is a thinning conception of citizenship and voter apathy. We can then provide all the information in the world but there is no path to popular investment in democracy without fixing disenchantment with the political class. A sense of personal stake in representative democracy requires not just information but engendering the feeling that the political parties/leaders in question are custodians of their personal interests and thus truly their representatives in Delhi.

Liberals like us may prattle on about the virtues of democracy at large but India’s only liberal political party too suffers from this popular disconnect. This is because the basis of Indian liberalism typically has been institutionalism and the espousal of tolerance and social welfare, instead of a normative vision which can provide people clarity, identity and community. In the absence of personal affiliation, abstractions about democracy often have little bearing on people’s daily lives. There is no doubt that the democratic space in India is shrinking, but this abridgement is targeted. It is thus most keenly felt by the beleaguered minority or on the margins by those who are directly in the crosshairs of the government, such as the Opposition, media and activists. For the rest, the difference, if any, is marginal. The daily wage worker, the peon, the domestic worker, the auto driver who gets slapped around for collection by the policeman have always known arbitrary power and are unlikely to experience a difference in their life unless they are directly engaged and politicised. Even for those at the top who may directly interface with political actors, most people just put their heads down and carry on through a mix of opportunism and sycophancy. This is likely what they would have done in a more expansive democracy as well.

The popular disconnect with the political class may explain why the BJP is preemptively knocking out its opponents in a contest it was slated to win anyway. It is likely that the electorate at large will not be incensed enough by this predatory behaviour to impose a high political cost on the BJP. On the other hand, there are significant advantages to consolidating political power, not least the ability to implement its full ideological agenda and position itself for the long term by eviscerating the Opposition. This doesn't bode well for our country going forward because the willingness of the BJP to undermine its own democratic legitimacy removes the last check — self-restraint — on its abuse of executive power.

Finally, what does it mean for the Opposition going forward? It would be hyperbole to predict the demise of Indian democracy, irrespective of the outcome of the national election in 2024. Our country is too large and federated to be suppressed in one shot. Its expanse and diversity will always provide spaces for democratic action even when institutions falter. However, the Opposition must find a way out of its isolation through a deeper connection with people’s lives.

Political parties have evolved into closed clubs where the average person has very little visibility in decision-making, let alone influence. Moreover, the political class is seen to be self-serving and the basis of the relationship between political parties and people has become transactional, with the expectation of welldefined economic benefits from voting one party or another into power.