Delhi New CM's Statement Highlights Indian Politics’ Core Dilemma

For party leaders outside of the top leader, public interest must almost always be expressed as an extension of installing the top leader in power

Published in the Times of India

Delhi’s new CM, Atishi Marlena, made clear whom she serves in her first statement, "Delhi has only one CM and his name is Arvind Kejriwal." She added "Our sole objective will be to make him CM again," while asking people not to garland her or celebrate, expressing "extreme sadness" over Kejriwal’s resignation.

This statement is striking for two reasons. As Chief Minister, her primary responsibility is towards the people of Delhi. Indeed, the signs of collapsing governance are all around us - in the streets flooded after a spell of rain, unchecked pollution, water crisis - but instead of talking of these and other public issues, she framed her sole aim as reinstating Kejriwal as CM, placing the party leader's interests above the public's. By foregrounding internal organizational preoccupations in its external communication, AAP is making the same mistake that established parties have made at one time or another - to their inevitable detriment — of inadvertently communicating that the Party exists to serve the interests of leadership rather than representing the interests of the people.

While it may be natural to rally around a leader during a crisis, Atishi's statement exemplifies a broader, more systemic issue plaguing Indian politics: the culture of sycophancy. This phenomenon, where party members prioritize public expressions of loyalty over public service, is not unique to AAP but pervasive across the political landscape. The danger lies not just in narrowly defined party priorities or in a fundamental shift of democratic principles - but to the party itself. When political discourse centers more on pleasing party leadership than addressing citizens' needs, it creates a dangerous insularity, disconnecting parties from the very people they claim to represent. This disconnect was glaringly evident when Atishi declared that making Kejriwal the CM again would be the the aim of not just her and her Party but also Delhi's entire 2 crore electorate, effectively giving precedence to party goals over public interest. 

It's highly possible that if Atishi had chosen to speak of her obligations to the people of Delhi instead of her obligation to her leader, Kejriwal, it would have seemed that she was trying to carve out an independent space for herself and thus be perceived as a challenger to Kejriwal's leadership. This is a constant dilemma in Indian politics, where the search for a temporary replacement or loyal delegate is always fraught with the possibility of a challenge to leader’s own power. Consequently, Indian political culture has evolved in a manner where, for party leaders outside of the top leader, public interest is almost always expressed as an extension of installing the top leader in power. The corollary is that when party members express independent views on public interest, these are often misinterpreted as challenges to leadership. This misperception ignores - and stamps out - the natural and inevitable differences that exist among thinking individuals, even when they share a common platform and purpose.

This intra-party dynamic may seem expedient but ultimately has negative consequences for both the party leadership and the party. One common outcome is atrophy and decay of political parties with time. This occurs because equating control over a party with conformity stifles the very ingredients needed to keep parties connected with its constituents—dialogue, discussion, and feedback. To prevent this decay, parties must promote internal forums for debate where dissent isn't seen as disloyalty but as part of a robust dialogue and find cohesion in common ideology rather than in leadership alone. Else, genuine solidarity and long-term commitment will be supplanted by sycophancy. 

Overt sycophancy is often a performative act, an attempt to prove loyalty in a landscape filled with opportunism. But those who engage in sycophancy often do so at the expense of their own self-respect—the trait necessary for integrity and long-term commitment. In the short term, sycophants appear reliable, but examples abound where the loudest, most vocal sycophants are often the first to shift allegiance when it's convenient - and then become loudest sycophants on the other side. This trend has created a pervasive culture of opportunism, mistrust and instability within and across political parties.

Moreover, sycophancy fosters a culture of groupthink, leading to insularity, where diverse perspectives are sidelined in favor of reinforcing the leader's agenda. This undermines the party's ability to engage meaningfully with the public and weakens its capacity to evolve and adapt to the changing needs of the people. Equally, a culture of sycophancy tends to sever the ongoing ideological connection with the broader public, making political parties look like closed clubs for private gain leading to voter alienation. 

Ultimately, fostering a political culture that values integrity and self-restraint over sycophancy is essential for the long-term health of political parties - and Indian democracy. The challenge for party leadership is not how to suppress independent voices, but how to allow leaders to prioritize and express their view of the public interest while maintaining party cohesion. Doing so will make political parties more resilient and - strengthen not weaken party leadership. For Atishi and Kejriwal, the real challenge is reorienting their focus toward addressing Delhi’s urgent needs. Only by assiduously and exclusively focusing on the public good can AAP - and Kejriwal - regain the niche they seek to occupy - the do-gooder aam aadmi. 

Also Read: