The only opportunity that the Indian political establishment led by parties such as the BJP and the Congress is looking for is evidence to prove that AAP is no different from them.

At the peak of a success that no other political party in India could achieve, the AAP looks vulnerable to a meltdown yet again. Last time it faced an implosion was a year ago, when some local, but prominent leaders revolted because they failed to get positions in the government. More over, people were also speaking out of line and devising their own ideologies.

This time, the situation appears graver because there seems to be a serious difference of opinion among the three top founding leaders of the party - Arvind Kejriwal, Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan. A leaked letter from AAP’s Internal Lokpal, Admiral Ramdas, to the party’s national executive confirms the turmoil at the top while media reports suggest that Yadav and Bhushan are unhappy about the way decisions are made and that Kejriwal wants them to be removed from the party’s national executive. In short, there seems to be rising dissent against the style of functioning of Kejriwal and how most of the power is vested on him.

While Yadav reportedly dismissed the suggestions of a rift as a conspiracy, party spokesperson Ashutosh tweeted that it was a clash between the ultra left and pragmatic politics. However, from the letters of Admiral Ramdas and Bhushan it’s abundantly clear that there is indeed a problem.

What the AAP is facing are the perils of a bourgeoisie democracy that even a party with high ideals cannot escape. During their rise through the processes of social ferment and popular excitement, the party was cruising, but when it came to formalisation and institutionalisation, it was confused. The dissent within its ranks and the failure to govern in Delhi last time came from the weakness in the last two phases that successful socio-political movements usually settle down to. The same weaknesses seem to be haunting the party yet again although it will still take time to judge its performance on governance that also makes up the process of institutionalisation.

The problem is certainly the difficulty of AAP in aligning with a set pattern of our bourgeoisie democracy wherein ideals have to compete with electoral support and constraints of running a political party that will ultimately mimic other parties. Kejriwal began as an uncompromising idealist, but had to quickly change to a practical politician that fits the needs of Indian democracy. If he hadn’t made this quick transition, his party wouldn’t have won.

The biggest weakness attributed to him - that is he is running a party that is “one-person centric” is in fact such a trap that’s hard to escape. In Delhi, it was the Kejriwal phenomenon that had won las time and he wanted to persist with that winning formula which proved to be more successful, this time around. Now, he is a captive of this formula. The man who spoke of swaraj, participatory democracy and bottom-up decision making is now unable to shirk off a top-down, “one-person centric” model. It may be noted that even Jawaharlal Nehru, who was a profound believer of democracy, “embodied paradox and autocratic tendencies.” (Economic Philosophy of Jawaharlal Nehru edited by Anil Kumar Thakur, Debes Mukhopadhayay). Kejriwal is a quicker political product than Nehru.

In the coming days, the reconciliation of AAP, or more importantly the majority of its apparatus led by Kejriwal, to the demands of a bourgeoisie democracy will be more evident and may lead to two possibilities - one, the party gets mainstreamed like the Congress and the Communists after their initial years of ideals; and two, it holds on to its ideals and fails. If an originally idealistic Congress could get infested with all types of influence peddlers and vested interests and the Communists in Kerala and Bengal could unabashedly espouse the cause of crony capitalists, it’s hard for the AAP to remain immune. If Kejriwal continues to run the party on his charisma alone, the decline will be faster.

Yadav and Bhushan are evidently worried about this possibility. If AAP has to sustain itself in Delhi and scale up across India as an example of alternative politics, its fluid DNA has to be wired differently. It was a social movement, co-created by the people of Delhi, that turned into a political party. As it expands, if it has to change the game of Indian politics, it has to defy the norms and play by its own rules. That’s what happened in Delhi, but the bigger challenge is sustaining it.

The only opportunity that the Indian political establishment led by parties such as the BJP and the Congress is looking for is evidence to prove that AAP is no different from them. During the Delhi election campaign and the post-election debates, this was the obvious attempt of the BJP. Therefore, the AAP doesn’t even need to fail to be dubbed a failure, but show signs of its ideals fraying. However, practical politics and governance will certainly demand some compromises, which even Lenin had advised his followers to avoid the risk of “turning into nothing but windbags”.

Anyway, it’s work in progress and let’s see if what happens next.