The straightforward reason for Arvind Kejriwal's resounding victory is that the Congress vote -- which amounted to 24% in the 2013 assembly elections -- significantly switched to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The land ordinance, whose implications the AAP was quick to pick up on, also turned rural notables against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
But this victory is about so much more; it is about where the urban poor belong in mainstream politics, what this does to the authority of Narendra Modi and what this impact will have on national politics at large.
Kejriwal’s win is an important reminder that the politics of expressing a ‘preferential option for the poor’ can be a successful strategy in electoral democracy. The thing that strikes you as you listen to AAP supporters either on videos posted on Facebook or the auto driver who happens to support him is the intensity, the vehemence and the air of defiance that is imbued in their support for Kejriwal. There is also a festive exuberance of a hitherto silent urban insurgency, reared on cynicism about the empty spectacle of power, now finding utterance.
And why not. The AAP stood by its urban poor base literally through thick and thin, making a decisive impression during its stint in power by offering free water, halving power bills and enforcing a measure of discipline and restraint on Delhi Police which, in most accounts of the poor, had never happened before. Kejriwal and Co. endured withering criticism from their own supporters over resigning in haste and yet kept in touch with underprivileged communities, helping to rebuild slums, and offering a range of services including legal advocacy through its stream of volunteers. The AAP grew out of an eco-system of social movement activism – featuring civil society leaders and academics – that is marked a no-frills tenacity that other political parties struggle to match. The RSS does have that level of commitment but its effectiveness is hamstrung by its lack of inclusivity and its problematic relationship with capital and the entrepreneurial political class that populate its allied outfits like the BJP.
Kejriwal has no such ambiguity. He makes explicit the connection between someone’s power and affluence and other’s deprivation. The themes are clear: the public good is being corralled into private interests. Politicians, big business and power companies are all complicit in this process robbing the commonweal of resources that can benefit all. Poverty and the absence of power is a derivative of the rich man’s agency and Kejriwal wants to use the state to restore a level-playing field. Others have tried this narrative before but in the person of Kejriwal this has particular velocity owing perhaps to his technocratic expertise, his fluency in English and the vernacular and his distinctive, studious delivery that works well both in public meetings and on TV. While Prime Minister Modi can scarcely bring himself to be asked two back-to-back questions in a press conference, Kejriwal handles any TV anchor with an assurance that borders on rudeness, which works as an asset if you have a reputation for speaking for the poor. They see in his clarity their own rage articulated and radiated to the rich and powerful. He offers to the urban poor the delight of someone speak up unapologetically for the underclass without so much mentioning caste and religious divisions and, for the volunteers, there is the moral spur of participating in that endeavour....
Decoding Delhi verdict: Why Kejriwal's AAP won, how Modi lost and what does the result mean
You will have my point.
