temujin
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 447
- Reaction score
- 0
Many people suspect him of being a 'leftist'. Shri Shri Ravishankar, closely associated with Anna's Lokpal Agitatation, suggests he may have Naxalite leanings whilst Nitin Gadkari decries him as a 'right wing Maoist' (whatever that means). May find AK's statements on Batla House and Kashmir or his willingness to align with communal and anti social elements disquieting. Yet, AAP talk about 'Swaraj' with Gandhian zeal and their free wheeling, populist policies resemble those of the self admittedly 'left of centre' Congress. In many respects, AAP appears to be a one trick pony with an entire electoral campaign built around its purported crusade against corruption. Seductive though this message is to the average voter suffering the double whammy of poor governance and rising prices, AK and his party have been reticent to articulate their views on wider national issues, which is odd for a party harbouring ambitions of taking on Modi in May 2014.
Listening to AK's rambling sermon at the swearing in ceremony, in which he laid out his disturbing vision for nation, I became increasingly curious about the broader ideological underpinnings of AAP which appear to have received little scrutiny amidst the shrill rhetoric about 'corruption'. Such questions are usually dismissed by AAPers as vexatious/politically motivated whilst fanboys celebrate AAP's apparent lack of ideology as yet another refreshing change from other mainstream political outfits. Given his party's rising fortunes nationally, I feel AK's views on the Indian state, current political system as well as his proposed alternatives deserve a thorough analysis to enable the electorate to make more informed choices at the general elections.
A fairweather socialist himself, Javed Akthar appears to be the only senior commentator who has recognised the potential problem with some of AK's stated solutions and questioned their compatibility with the existing constitutional framework.
Please note how AK cleverly evades JA specific question about where his vision of direct democracy sits within the parliamentary system, resorting to obfuscation, for instance making the patently false claim that 'referendum and initiative' is the pre-eminent democratic system globally, followed by a totally irrelevant rant about the inaccessibility of legal system to the poor etc. AK tends to offer similar rote answers to tricky questions at his numerous TV appearances and frequently cites the examples of Switzerland and now AAP MLA Binny's 'Jan Sabha' to justify his loony policies.
During an NDTV talk show in October, a member of the audience poses a similar question to AK, the response to which reveals the true motivations behind AK's agitation against corruption.
12:20 on
It is evident that AK's real intention is not tackling corruption itself but highlighting it as an example of a dysfunctional political system that is no longer fit for purpose. The existing political hierarchy (all politicians are corrupt') is held to blame, a view buttressed by the argument that the current 'system' does not enable even honest politicians to thrive. He therefore proposes a 'change of system' involving 'decentralisation of power' which the stupid anchor wrongly compares to 'Panchayati Raaj'. He proceeds to mock the existing electoral system and laments that it does not represent 'true democracy' without spelling out the presumed alternative. He subsequently repeats the call to 'change the system' towards the end of the show (see last 2-3 mins).
I have seen him air similar views in relation to 'system change', 'decentralisation' and 'true democracy' without offering too much detail during other TV appearances as well.
In another interview, even the normally cantankerous Arnab Goswami appears to be in awe of AK and fails to pick him up on his crackpot economic policies, for instance consensus pricing of petrol/diesel (as if international crude prices are set by the Aam Aadmi)
On other occasions, AK has refused to be drawn into discussions on issues of national security, foreign affairs, particularly Pakistan.
Inspirational opinion of Shri Arvind Kejriwal on Pakistan. - YouTube
As you can see, AK refuses to offer a view on detention of terror suspects by pointing out that it is the prerogative of the Central Government due to Delhi's status as a Union Territory. Yet full statehood for Delhi, which would bring the police under the ambit of the state government, is one of the big manifesto promises of AAP.
So where does that leave AK and AAP from an ideological stand point? They obviously see themselves at the left of the political spectrum but how left is an important question for the electorate, given AK's prime ministerial aspirations. I know AK has written a booklet of sorts in Hindi in which he has allegedly answered all his doubters but no translation exists for the less fortunate among us who cannot read Hindi.
A clue to his ideological leanings can be found in the AAP manifesto which refers to the 'Porto Alegre' model in the context of participatory budgeting. The idea itself is laudable since it essentially seeks to empower local communities to make decisions on how public funds are spent, through 'Mohalla Sabhas', in the case of Delhi. The model was originally developed in the City of Porto Alegre in Brazil before being replicated in many parts of the world with mixed results. More importantly, PB was essentially inspired by leftist outfits/workers parties which saw in it the beginnings of a 'participatory' or 'direct democracy' which took power away from the state and placed it directly in the hands of the people. The process was riddled with issues from the outset since it frequently brought the local communities and the executive into conflict at the implementation phase, did not account for competing party political, cultural or sectarian interests, in addition to the fact that budgetary matters are often influenced by factors that operated outside local control. The process quickly lost momentum after the leftists recognised its failure to transfer power from the state to the citizenry as envisaged, in addition to a wider perception that bourgeoisie forces had co opted it in order to fool the masses and make them more 'governable'.
Quite why AK and his coterie would want to foist such a failed and impractical system on Delhities may appear baffling but it increasingly makes sense when one examines it in the context of the ' whole 'direct democracy' lark.
To save me from writing a thesis on leftist political thought, it would suffice to say there are striking similarities between the model of government proposed by AK and that developed by Murray Bookchin, the late American radical leftist ideologue. In fact, many of AK's recent political manoeuvrings which resemble political gimmickry are entirely consistent with ideas expressed in the seminal paper written by Bookchin on Communalism (not as understood in India but an extreme leftist political position inspired by anarchism and social ecology) and face to face democracy in 1972.
Bookchin himself started life as a strident Marxist but progressed to anarchism after he realised that the proletariat are easily seduced by scraps thrown at them by capitalists. However, he proclaimed in the 70s that the 'era of revolution was over' and started advocating limited democratic engagement, in contrast to the traditional anarchic position of rejection and non engagement with the state.
The fundamental anarchic position is that hierarchies in general concentrate power in a hands of a few who in turn abuse it to oppress those servile to them. In this context, they regard state and its organs as oppressive forces by default since they constrain individual freedoms and prevent people from achieving their intellectual, physical and creative potential. They reject all forms of democracy as it entails rule by majority mandate, which consequently gives rise to an oppressed and voiceless minority. Anarchists call for a total rejection of the state in all its forms and manifestations and aspire to a stateless society where individuals exist in non hierarchical free associations. From an economic perspective, they are anti capitalist, believe in harmonious relationship between man and nature, espouse shared ownership of means of production and remuneration based on effort and need.
Although he remained committed to the central anarchist dogma of a stateless society and opposition to centralisation of power, Bookchin offered a remedy to swell the depleted anarchist ranks in 70s US
In 'Spring Offensives, Summer Vacations' published in the June 1972 edition of Anarchos' he wrote
“The hollow cone that we call a movement must acquire a more solid geometry. It must be filled in by an authentic popular movement based on the self-activity of the American people, not the theatrical eruptions of a dedicated minority.” Antiwar activists, he urged, should build stable institutions — somewhat like the ones he had written about four years earlier, in “Forms of Freedom”:
Our effort must now be directed throughout the entire year to catalyzing popular antiwar groups: popular assemblies and local action committees, if you like, each rooted in a community, campus, school, professional arena, ... factory, office, and research establishment. A real movement must be built out of these formations for the immediate purpose of antiwar activity and perhaps in the long run as popular modes of self-activity to achieve a society based on self-management. ... each popular institution is free to make its own local decisions, free to act or not act as it feels necessary.
Note the parallels with AK's own initial alignment with Anna Hazare as part of a popular apolitical movement and his abrupt decision to part ways once he became strongly identified with the movement and acquired a critical mass of supporters.
Murray further developed his ideas on 'face to face democracy' in the early 1980s and even christened it 'Libertarian municipalism', possibly to make it more palatable to the left phobic American audience.
He argued the need for a “new politics,” one based, not in a national capital, but at the community level, a “new politics” of citizenship in which people take charge of their own political life, through participation in popular assemblies. Murray distinguished between politics (which is practiced by citizens in assemblies) and statecraft (which is practiced by officeholders in the institutions of the nation-state). He believed that politics must be “a school for genuine citizenship.
Libertarian municipalist activists would therefore create groups to run candidates in municipal elections, on platforms calling for the creation of face-to-face democracy in popular assemblies. When the citizenry elected enough such candidates to office, the new city councilors would fulfill the one purpose for which they had been elected: they would alter city and town charters to create popular assemblies. Thus the assemblies would come about as a result of a conscious devolution of power from existing statist municipal institutions: The assemblies, so empowered, would take over the functions of municipal governments. They would municipalize the economy, taking over the ownership and management of local economic life, allowing the people of community to make decisions about economic activity in their area. The township should have control over the land; it should have control over the industries. Collectivization itself can lead many different directions .... Municipalization means the municipality controls it through neighborhood organizations or through town meetings.
Now consider the following points from the AAP manifesto
Swaraj
Devolving power directly to people; decisions about development in any locality to be taken by Mohalla Sabhas; payments for any work (roads, pavement, etc) to be released only once the work is approved by Mohalla Sabhas
Mohalla Sabhas to monitor the functioning of local school, primary health centres, ration shop
One can clearly see echoes Bookchin's Libertarian Muncipalism in these proposals from AAP.
So what's the problem you might ask. 'Power to the people' sounds catchy and might even win a few votes. The prospect of cutting out corrupt netas from the economic food chain would appeal to most people in India.
The problem lies in the fact that Libertarian Muncipalism cannot exist in isolation at the local level-it needs to be scaled up to the federal level to bring about the 'revolutionary change' Bookchin desires. In other words, it is only a means to the eventual goal of 'system change', or in Bookchin's words, 'end of republicanism (representative democracy and statism)'
According to Bookchin,
“Over larger regions the democratized municipalities would interlink by confederating with one another:
What, then, is confederalism? It is above all a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies, ... The members of these confederal councils are strictly mandated, recallable, and responsible to the assemblies that chose them for the purpose of coordinating and administering the policies formed by the assemblies themselves. Their function is thus a purely administrative and practical one, not a policy-making one like the function of representatives in republican systems of government.
Listening to AK's rambling sermon at the swearing in ceremony, in which he laid out his disturbing vision for nation, I became increasingly curious about the broader ideological underpinnings of AAP which appear to have received little scrutiny amidst the shrill rhetoric about 'corruption'. Such questions are usually dismissed by AAPers as vexatious/politically motivated whilst fanboys celebrate AAP's apparent lack of ideology as yet another refreshing change from other mainstream political outfits. Given his party's rising fortunes nationally, I feel AK's views on the Indian state, current political system as well as his proposed alternatives deserve a thorough analysis to enable the electorate to make more informed choices at the general elections.
A fairweather socialist himself, Javed Akthar appears to be the only senior commentator who has recognised the potential problem with some of AK's stated solutions and questioned their compatibility with the existing constitutional framework.
Please note how AK cleverly evades JA specific question about where his vision of direct democracy sits within the parliamentary system, resorting to obfuscation, for instance making the patently false claim that 'referendum and initiative' is the pre-eminent democratic system globally, followed by a totally irrelevant rant about the inaccessibility of legal system to the poor etc. AK tends to offer similar rote answers to tricky questions at his numerous TV appearances and frequently cites the examples of Switzerland and now AAP MLA Binny's 'Jan Sabha' to justify his loony policies.
During an NDTV talk show in October, a member of the audience poses a similar question to AK, the response to which reveals the true motivations behind AK's agitation against corruption.
12:20 on
It is evident that AK's real intention is not tackling corruption itself but highlighting it as an example of a dysfunctional political system that is no longer fit for purpose. The existing political hierarchy (all politicians are corrupt') is held to blame, a view buttressed by the argument that the current 'system' does not enable even honest politicians to thrive. He therefore proposes a 'change of system' involving 'decentralisation of power' which the stupid anchor wrongly compares to 'Panchayati Raaj'. He proceeds to mock the existing electoral system and laments that it does not represent 'true democracy' without spelling out the presumed alternative. He subsequently repeats the call to 'change the system' towards the end of the show (see last 2-3 mins).
I have seen him air similar views in relation to 'system change', 'decentralisation' and 'true democracy' without offering too much detail during other TV appearances as well.
In another interview, even the normally cantankerous Arnab Goswami appears to be in awe of AK and fails to pick him up on his crackpot economic policies, for instance consensus pricing of petrol/diesel (as if international crude prices are set by the Aam Aadmi)
On other occasions, AK has refused to be drawn into discussions on issues of national security, foreign affairs, particularly Pakistan.
Inspirational opinion of Shri Arvind Kejriwal on Pakistan. - YouTube
As you can see, AK refuses to offer a view on detention of terror suspects by pointing out that it is the prerogative of the Central Government due to Delhi's status as a Union Territory. Yet full statehood for Delhi, which would bring the police under the ambit of the state government, is one of the big manifesto promises of AAP.
So where does that leave AK and AAP from an ideological stand point? They obviously see themselves at the left of the political spectrum but how left is an important question for the electorate, given AK's prime ministerial aspirations. I know AK has written a booklet of sorts in Hindi in which he has allegedly answered all his doubters but no translation exists for the less fortunate among us who cannot read Hindi.
A clue to his ideological leanings can be found in the AAP manifesto which refers to the 'Porto Alegre' model in the context of participatory budgeting. The idea itself is laudable since it essentially seeks to empower local communities to make decisions on how public funds are spent, through 'Mohalla Sabhas', in the case of Delhi. The model was originally developed in the City of Porto Alegre in Brazil before being replicated in many parts of the world with mixed results. More importantly, PB was essentially inspired by leftist outfits/workers parties which saw in it the beginnings of a 'participatory' or 'direct democracy' which took power away from the state and placed it directly in the hands of the people. The process was riddled with issues from the outset since it frequently brought the local communities and the executive into conflict at the implementation phase, did not account for competing party political, cultural or sectarian interests, in addition to the fact that budgetary matters are often influenced by factors that operated outside local control. The process quickly lost momentum after the leftists recognised its failure to transfer power from the state to the citizenry as envisaged, in addition to a wider perception that bourgeoisie forces had co opted it in order to fool the masses and make them more 'governable'.
Quite why AK and his coterie would want to foist such a failed and impractical system on Delhities may appear baffling but it increasingly makes sense when one examines it in the context of the ' whole 'direct democracy' lark.
To save me from writing a thesis on leftist political thought, it would suffice to say there are striking similarities between the model of government proposed by AK and that developed by Murray Bookchin, the late American radical leftist ideologue. In fact, many of AK's recent political manoeuvrings which resemble political gimmickry are entirely consistent with ideas expressed in the seminal paper written by Bookchin on Communalism (not as understood in India but an extreme leftist political position inspired by anarchism and social ecology) and face to face democracy in 1972.
Bookchin himself started life as a strident Marxist but progressed to anarchism after he realised that the proletariat are easily seduced by scraps thrown at them by capitalists. However, he proclaimed in the 70s that the 'era of revolution was over' and started advocating limited democratic engagement, in contrast to the traditional anarchic position of rejection and non engagement with the state.
The fundamental anarchic position is that hierarchies in general concentrate power in a hands of a few who in turn abuse it to oppress those servile to them. In this context, they regard state and its organs as oppressive forces by default since they constrain individual freedoms and prevent people from achieving their intellectual, physical and creative potential. They reject all forms of democracy as it entails rule by majority mandate, which consequently gives rise to an oppressed and voiceless minority. Anarchists call for a total rejection of the state in all its forms and manifestations and aspire to a stateless society where individuals exist in non hierarchical free associations. From an economic perspective, they are anti capitalist, believe in harmonious relationship between man and nature, espouse shared ownership of means of production and remuneration based on effort and need.
Although he remained committed to the central anarchist dogma of a stateless society and opposition to centralisation of power, Bookchin offered a remedy to swell the depleted anarchist ranks in 70s US
In 'Spring Offensives, Summer Vacations' published in the June 1972 edition of Anarchos' he wrote
“The hollow cone that we call a movement must acquire a more solid geometry. It must be filled in by an authentic popular movement based on the self-activity of the American people, not the theatrical eruptions of a dedicated minority.” Antiwar activists, he urged, should build stable institutions — somewhat like the ones he had written about four years earlier, in “Forms of Freedom”:
Our effort must now be directed throughout the entire year to catalyzing popular antiwar groups: popular assemblies and local action committees, if you like, each rooted in a community, campus, school, professional arena, ... factory, office, and research establishment. A real movement must be built out of these formations for the immediate purpose of antiwar activity and perhaps in the long run as popular modes of self-activity to achieve a society based on self-management. ... each popular institution is free to make its own local decisions, free to act or not act as it feels necessary.
Note the parallels with AK's own initial alignment with Anna Hazare as part of a popular apolitical movement and his abrupt decision to part ways once he became strongly identified with the movement and acquired a critical mass of supporters.
Murray further developed his ideas on 'face to face democracy' in the early 1980s and even christened it 'Libertarian municipalism', possibly to make it more palatable to the left phobic American audience.
He argued the need for a “new politics,” one based, not in a national capital, but at the community level, a “new politics” of citizenship in which people take charge of their own political life, through participation in popular assemblies. Murray distinguished between politics (which is practiced by citizens in assemblies) and statecraft (which is practiced by officeholders in the institutions of the nation-state). He believed that politics must be “a school for genuine citizenship.
Libertarian municipalist activists would therefore create groups to run candidates in municipal elections, on platforms calling for the creation of face-to-face democracy in popular assemblies. When the citizenry elected enough such candidates to office, the new city councilors would fulfill the one purpose for which they had been elected: they would alter city and town charters to create popular assemblies. Thus the assemblies would come about as a result of a conscious devolution of power from existing statist municipal institutions: The assemblies, so empowered, would take over the functions of municipal governments. They would municipalize the economy, taking over the ownership and management of local economic life, allowing the people of community to make decisions about economic activity in their area. The township should have control over the land; it should have control over the industries. Collectivization itself can lead many different directions .... Municipalization means the municipality controls it through neighborhood organizations or through town meetings.
Now consider the following points from the AAP manifesto
Swaraj
Devolving power directly to people; decisions about development in any locality to be taken by Mohalla Sabhas; payments for any work (roads, pavement, etc) to be released only once the work is approved by Mohalla Sabhas
Mohalla Sabhas to monitor the functioning of local school, primary health centres, ration shop
One can clearly see echoes Bookchin's Libertarian Muncipalism in these proposals from AAP.
So what's the problem you might ask. 'Power to the people' sounds catchy and might even win a few votes. The prospect of cutting out corrupt netas from the economic food chain would appeal to most people in India.
The problem lies in the fact that Libertarian Muncipalism cannot exist in isolation at the local level-it needs to be scaled up to the federal level to bring about the 'revolutionary change' Bookchin desires. In other words, it is only a means to the eventual goal of 'system change', or in Bookchin's words, 'end of republicanism (representative democracy and statism)'
According to Bookchin,
“Over larger regions the democratized municipalities would interlink by confederating with one another:
What, then, is confederalism? It is above all a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies, ... The members of these confederal councils are strictly mandated, recallable, and responsible to the assemblies that chose them for the purpose of coordinating and administering the policies formed by the assemblies themselves. Their function is thus a purely administrative and practical one, not a policy-making one like the function of representatives in republican systems of government.
Note that in Bookchin's grand plan, representatives (MLAs, MPs) are elected by 'direct democracy', stripped of their legislative roles and reduced to performing admin functions for people's councils. They would also be liable for recall by their respective assemblies. Both of these would be illegal under the current constitution of India.
Interestingly these ideas are repeated in the AAP manifesto, for instance giving individuals the right to demand a recall of elected representatives, Lokpal etc
Most importantly, Murray observes that
The confederated municipalities, in which power flowed from the bottom up, would form a dual power, a counterpower, against the nation-state. That neighborhood assemblies and councils “will be thrown into dynamic opposition to the centralized state”. His primary concern, he argues, is “to stop the centralization of economic and political power ... to see that the municipal level acts as a brake upon the centralization of the state and ultimately leads to the abolition of the centralized state in a free municipal confederation of town and cities and villages structured in a libertarian form”
He concludes that “through these democratic institutions a revolutionary people would be enabled to replace the nation-state and exercise its power through popular self-government”
In “democratising the municipality”, Sveinung Legard, yet another champagne socialist peddling Bookchin's ideas states that despite their historical reservations, Anarchists should enter participatory politics in order to “ convince people that our demands are just and to demonstrate our ideas in practice”. He states that this would convince people that the “new social arrangement” can work in practice and enable to build an “alternate power structure” that would replace the current “oligrachy”. (Note AAP's actions since being in government which have certainly fuelled their popularity and made them look like a credible alternative to the two big parties)
He repeats the anti statist rhetoric of anarchism as well as the distinction between state and politics to argue that both activities exist independently of each other. Although he is convinced that “direct democratic and representative institutions cannot compliment each other” or that “state” “can be used as an instrument to facilitate democracy”, he suggests the following by way of electoral tactics.
In cases where participatory forms of local government already exist we have to enter them, and where they still do not exist we have to enter the municipal politics in order to create them. Our goal is to continuously expand the scale and outreach of direct democracy in these participatory aspects of municipal government.
He acknowledges that his comrades are likely to be outnumbered in their endeavours by anti revolutionary forces and urges them to “be acutely aware that the social situation in which we operate is not one of our own choosing, and act accordingly. We should not eschew making alliances with other groups, like those from the “participatory Left,” who are working for a more direct form of democracy. He quotes Eirik Eiglad to explain that since “our maximum demands (a democratic form of government based on popular assemblies and mandated delegation) require fundamental social change to be actualized, our minimum demands, which can be achieved within the existing society – in fact, immediately- such as initiation of participatory budgeting should be implemented to illustrate the transition from today’s realities to our ultimate social visions”
One can see how AAP joining hands with the congress and announcement of a raft of populist policies within days of assuming office are all part of a subversive plan.
To summarise, the similarities between AAP's agenda and the one envisioned by Bookchin are striking and AK has clearly been drinking from the same ideological watering hole frequented by Marxists, ex anarchists and hippies. There other points in the AAP manifesto (citizen's defence forces etc) that have also been lifted wholesale from Bookchin's anarchist manual. None of AK's supposed 'policies' have ever been successfully implemented anywhere in the world and the occasional attempts to adopt them have always ended up on the short road to tyranny.
More worryingly, the central dogma of anarchism and MC is anti statism, and the whole philosophy revolves around the singular objective of the usurpation of state authority in favour of happy clappy citizen/hippie communes. This is in contrast to your everyday Marxist or even Naxalites who see a strong state as the agent for revolutionary change. Beyond the usual anti war polemic, anarchists including Bookchin are understandably mum on the issue of national security, international relations etc as international geo political implications is the biggest flaw in their revolutionary plan.
Since he has largely plagiarised Bookchin and his fellow anarchists in drafting the AAP manifesto and his little booklet, it would be unreasonable to expect AK to offer us his candid views on the Indian state, parliamentary system, Kashmir or even Pakistan (even a 10 year old in India will have an opinion on Pakistan). No wonder our Pakistani friends her on PDF are ecstatic at AK's success in Delhi.
However, it is imperative that this charlatan is exposed for what he is before naïve Delhiites and possibly people beyond make the grave mistake of voting for him in the general elections.
Most importantly, Murray observes that
The confederated municipalities, in which power flowed from the bottom up, would form a dual power, a counterpower, against the nation-state. That neighborhood assemblies and councils “will be thrown into dynamic opposition to the centralized state”. His primary concern, he argues, is “to stop the centralization of economic and political power ... to see that the municipal level acts as a brake upon the centralization of the state and ultimately leads to the abolition of the centralized state in a free municipal confederation of town and cities and villages structured in a libertarian form”
He concludes that “through these democratic institutions a revolutionary people would be enabled to replace the nation-state and exercise its power through popular self-government”
In “democratising the municipality”, Sveinung Legard, yet another champagne socialist peddling Bookchin's ideas states that despite their historical reservations, Anarchists should enter participatory politics in order to “ convince people that our demands are just and to demonstrate our ideas in practice”. He states that this would convince people that the “new social arrangement” can work in practice and enable to build an “alternate power structure” that would replace the current “oligrachy”. (Note AAP's actions since being in government which have certainly fuelled their popularity and made them look like a credible alternative to the two big parties)
He repeats the anti statist rhetoric of anarchism as well as the distinction between state and politics to argue that both activities exist independently of each other. Although he is convinced that “direct democratic and representative institutions cannot compliment each other” or that “state” “can be used as an instrument to facilitate democracy”, he suggests the following by way of electoral tactics.
In cases where participatory forms of local government already exist we have to enter them, and where they still do not exist we have to enter the municipal politics in order to create them. Our goal is to continuously expand the scale and outreach of direct democracy in these participatory aspects of municipal government.
He acknowledges that his comrades are likely to be outnumbered in their endeavours by anti revolutionary forces and urges them to “be acutely aware that the social situation in which we operate is not one of our own choosing, and act accordingly. We should not eschew making alliances with other groups, like those from the “participatory Left,” who are working for a more direct form of democracy. He quotes Eirik Eiglad to explain that since “our maximum demands (a democratic form of government based on popular assemblies and mandated delegation) require fundamental social change to be actualized, our minimum demands, which can be achieved within the existing society – in fact, immediately- such as initiation of participatory budgeting should be implemented to illustrate the transition from today’s realities to our ultimate social visions”
One can see how AAP joining hands with the congress and announcement of a raft of populist policies within days of assuming office are all part of a subversive plan.
To summarise, the similarities between AAP's agenda and the one envisioned by Bookchin are striking and AK has clearly been drinking from the same ideological watering hole frequented by Marxists, ex anarchists and hippies. There other points in the AAP manifesto (citizen's defence forces etc) that have also been lifted wholesale from Bookchin's anarchist manual. None of AK's supposed 'policies' have ever been successfully implemented anywhere in the world and the occasional attempts to adopt them have always ended up on the short road to tyranny.
More worryingly, the central dogma of anarchism and MC is anti statism, and the whole philosophy revolves around the singular objective of the usurpation of state authority in favour of happy clappy citizen/hippie communes. This is in contrast to your everyday Marxist or even Naxalites who see a strong state as the agent for revolutionary change. Beyond the usual anti war polemic, anarchists including Bookchin are understandably mum on the issue of national security, international relations etc as international geo political implications is the biggest flaw in their revolutionary plan.
Since he has largely plagiarised Bookchin and his fellow anarchists in drafting the AAP manifesto and his little booklet, it would be unreasonable to expect AK to offer us his candid views on the Indian state, parliamentary system, Kashmir or even Pakistan (even a 10 year old in India will have an opinion on Pakistan). No wonder our Pakistani friends her on PDF are ecstatic at AK's success in Delhi.
However, it is imperative that this charlatan is exposed for what he is before naïve Delhiites and possibly people beyond make the grave mistake of voting for him in the general elections.
Last edited:
