His announcement interrupted by bouts of coughing, Arvind Kejriwal today sought to introduce a radical new element in Indian democracy that’ll produce a few coughing fits in India’s political establishment. His plan to “ask people of Delhi” – via community meetings, text messages and widely distributed party pamphlets – whether his Aam Aadmi Party should rule Delhi has only two major parallels in our times: the Swiss system of ‘direct democracy’ via referendums and signature campaigns, and state and local level votes on “propositions” in US politics.These are utterly alien to India’s and most democratic countries’ political practice. But they are entirely consistent with Kejriwal’s way of thinking. Before he became the politician du jour, Kejriwal had written a slim book in 2012 – Swaraj: Power to the People.Among its many arguments was a strong pitch for the Swiss model of direct democracy. That book should be required reading now for all thinking Indians (helpfully, the digital edition is available free on the internet.That book, more than his press conferences, statements, mohalla meetings and impromptu speeches to broom-waving admirers, shows Kejriwal has seriously thought about India’s politics and governance. That book also shows why it’s in India’s best interest that Arvind Kejriwal doesn’t actually wield power.Swaraj is Kejriwal’s call for nothing less than a revolution. Or even better described, a permanent revolution – that is, everything must be challenged all the time, because political status quo can corrupt anything.But the thing is, while permanent revolutionaries can be superbly useful in changing establishment thinking, they are awfully unsuitable at being the establishment. They do us a favour when they closely look at power but stay out of it.‘Permanent revolution’ as a concept entered political discourse thanks to Leon Trotsky. Brilliant as a theoretician, ruthless as a communist leader, Trotsky, along with Lenin and Stalin, made up the three kings of Soviet revolution. To cut a long and grisly Soviet communist story short, post Lenin’s death Stalin first outwitted and then exiled Trotsky, and ultimately had his rival murdered via a hit squad.But it’s not Soviet communism’s many appalling aberrations, or its fundamentally flawed nature, that’s relevant here. Trotsky’s idea of a permanent revolution is relevant to understanding Kejriwal because, like Trotsky, Kejriwal seems to think limited, incremental change is as bad as status quo. And like Trotsky, Kejriwal seems incapable of understanding that people – aam aadmi – are ultimately unwilling and uninterested in being instruments of continual change. They – all of us – also lack abilities required for playing this fantasy revolutionary role.Trotsky wanted working classes across countries to lead an almost global communist revolution – and then take things from there. This was hopelessly impractical for Soviet communist governance. Stalin, though a dictator and a murderous thug, was, from the point of view of Soviet communist ruling classes, more sensible – he said let’s build a ‘new society’ in USSR first.Look at Kejriwal. He has got votes, public support, a chance to form a government, do some good things and, given the nature of any system, make some compromises. But nope – Kejriwal wants to take government formation to the streets.Is that practical? 280 public meetings and voice vote decisions? Are text messages the way to democratic deliverance? Is that even right? AAP got a big vote share. But so did the BJP. What about BJP voters in Delhi – who didn’t want AAP to come to power? How does Kejriwal’s referendum include them?It is to avoid such situations that we have electoral democracy and organized politics. Yes, there are scoundrels in organized politics. But unilaterally imposing a Swiss-style referendum on Delhi over a weekend is not a solution – it is the playing out of a permanent revolutionary’s fantasy.Keriwal’s many policy recommendations – free water, half price power, one-stroke-regularization of unauthorized colonies, and many more – share the same symptoms of permanent revolution. Worryingly impractical, they are based on an assumption that negotiated change or an appreciation of complexities is just cowardice.Kejriwal in government is, therefore, bad news. But Kejriwal interrogating governments is great news. If Soviet communism wasn’t a criminal enterprise that killed real and imagined dissenters by millions, someone like Trotsky could have been a check on someone like Stalin.Someone like Kejriwal can be very useful for India’s system. He thinks seriously about serious issues, has the power to mobilize and the power to pose sharp questions to an establishment that needs plenty of interrogation.Take his love for the Swiss model. The Swiss system is worth taking seriously in India – but not in the way Kejriwal wants.Our very own permanent revolutionary should stay out of power. He’d do us more good by permanently remaining a powerful, non-establishment dissenter.