NEW DELHI: Their campaign caught popular imagination in a manner that shocked Delhi's political grandees. Their post-poll tactic - asking BJP, Congress to agree to their demands before they form a minority government - has been equally unconventional. But now that Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party is thinking whether or not to rule Delhi, a reality check on their declared philosophy of governance is useful.At a broad level, many policy experts and academics find AAP's governance blueprint too crowded. Sociologist Shiv Vishvanathan says a "sensible party can place 3-4 key issues...not dozens". AAP's manifesto had listed several radical measures and its post poll missive to Congress and BJP contains 18 demands. A senior bureaucrat, with experience in both Delhi and central administration, said such long lists of demands are "evidence of passion perhaps, but not pragmatism". This bureaucrat did not wish to be named.Some social scientists are more sympathetic. Delhi University professor Achin Vanaik says AAP's promises are largely "aspirational...they show up the motive of BJP and Congress". Vanaik also said AAP's governance philosophy was a message for social change. However, he said looked at closely, some demands are impractical.However, he said, looked at closely, some demands are impractical.Vishvanathan says AAP is yet to show evidence it "understands process". "You can't just change things...you have to see points of view of various stakeholders". Congress and BJP have both responded adversely to AAP's lists, with leaders of both parties describing the charter as unrealistic. Broken down to specific demands, AAP's governance philosophy also attracts considerable criticism.Regularising Delhi's many unauthorised colonies has been a key AAP promise. Former Union minister and BJP leader Arun Shourie, who has written extensively on governance issues, says "this is a policy that will lead to anarchy and chaos". Shourie's argument was echoed by Delhi bureaucrats with experience in dealing with urban problems. They said a stroke-of-a-pen regularisation will not just incentivise future bad behavior on part of developers it will also put enormous pressure on a civic administration that's already stretched. Shourie said if AAP wants to make an effective intervention, it should throw its weight behind low-income housing.Even more than regularisation of unauthorised colonies, AAP's promise to cut Delhi's power bills by 50% and provide water free of cost has attracted economists' censure. AAP's Praveen Singh says providing 700 litres of water free to every family is basic human rights and that water consumption beyond this can be charged in full. "This is sustainable," Singh says. But most experts disagree.Economist Ajay Shah said AAP's math doesn't work when it comes to water. "Delhi has 11 million (1.10 crore) persons. Assuming 4 persons per family and Rs 5 to produce a kilolitre of water; we would require Rs 94.5 lakh per day or Rs 340 crore for a year. This is the production cost, you cannot wish away. For this to be free, funds will have to be found. Even if corruption is removed, costs will be high. Further, this is not sustainable -- if AAP is successful, corruption will come down and more people will flock to Delhi. The source of revenue will fall every year and the cost of keeping the promise will rise." Sanjay Kumar, fellow at CSDS, was critical, too. "Supplying 700 litres of water per family per day free seems completely impractical," Kumar said.On AAP's most publicised promise - halving Delhi's power bills - the party is being asked several questions. Kumar says, "First of all, they will have to prove that the power suppliers are making 100 to 200% profit. But even if they prove corruption in this sector, it's difficult to imagine how they can bring down the tariff by half. These issues catapulted them to limelight, but I think the same promise will lead to chaos in Delhi."There's some sympathy for AAP's demand that power distribution companies be audited. Shourie, Vishvanathan and Shah say in principle this is not a bad idea. But has AAP thought through the implications of this promise, economists and policy mavens ask. Shah says, "While auditing of electricity companies is good stance compared to demand in tariff reduction, is the party willing to support increase in electricity prices if it is found that electricity companies are running at a loss? When you demand an audit, you are being fair, but when you presume the result of the audit, you lose your moral right."AAP's Manish Sisodia says his party's demands are realistic. He cites a recommendation by a former power regulator in Delhi that tariffs be cut by 23% and also says if corruption is brought down, losses and therefore rates can come down.But this is severely contested. Distribution companies say there is not much scope to cut tariffs. "When 90% of the cost of a discom is power purchase, there is not much that can be done to cut tariffs unless the government subsidises electricity," said a senior executive at a distribution company. "The main issue is the cost of power, which has increased by 300% since 2002. The tariffs have increase only around 70%. This is really a huge burden on discoms. Where is the scope for cutting tariffs?" he said. "Delhi Electricity Regulatory Authority in its statutory advice to Government of Delhi has admitted that private discoms in the city have a revenue gap of Rs 19,500 crore. The current revenue is not enough to meet costs," he said.The CEO of Tata Power's Delhi distribution arm Pravir Sinha recently told ET that a change of government in Delhi should not make an impact as tariffs are fixed by the regulator, not the government or the distribution companies."Our rates are no different than other places. There is no black magic that can be done in terms of rates. We procure power from generating companies that are mostly government-owned entities. The cost of power procured depends on cost of fuel," he said.Experts said reducing electricity prices by a large margin was not possible unless government subsidises the tariffs."The reason being in our system, distribution losses will remain at 7-8% and there is not much scope for a huge reduction in power purchase cost. There is no way tariffs can come down by 50% unless they declare a huge subsidy," said Debashish Mishra, senior director of Deloitte in India.Other, less headline-grabbing AAP demands also attract charges of not being thought through. Shah says this of AAP's formula on public spending: "The demand for approvals from mohalla sabhas for releasing payments for public work is again fraught with the same political corruption problems. We should pause and think why persons in charge of mohalla sabhas will not become rent seekers for each approval? The same has played out in our experience of decentralisation."Economist Bibek Debroy said AAP's promise of 500 new government schools sound good on paper. "But how will they guarantee quality," he asks. Debroy was also of the view that AAP's approach ignores the question of resource mobilisation. "Where will funds for all their schemes come from?" he wonders. Similar views were echoed by Rajiv Kumar, of Centre for Policy Research. "AAP's promises have little economic rationale," he says.