FIIB Debate on AAP Government’s Resignation

Following Arvind Kejriwal and his Party’s resignation just 49 days after coming into the power at the Delhi Assembly, last week’s In-house debate at Fortune Institute of International Business explored the topic, “Is AAP’s resignation an admission of defeat or a tactical retreat?” FIIB conducts weekly in-house debates on current event-issues among FIIB-ians to enhance their analytical skills with logic and also to develop critical thinking abilities. Participants share their personal views in the form of comments to establish their opinions effectively and persuasively either speaking for or against the motion. The continuously changing dynamics of the Indian Political system, especially in Delhi state Assembly patterns has evoked mixed opinions from concerned citizens. President’s Rule has been imposed in the Capital until further elections are held following Mr. Kejriwal & Team’s resignation from the State Governance. During the Debate, participants expressed their side of opinions articulating their views on whether the sudden decision by the Aam Aadmi Party is justified.

A Tactical Retreat

Prof. Vinita is of the belief that AAP Government’s resignations is actually a tactically retreat. She thinks that, “The support base of the Aam Admi Party is changing very fast. The man on the street views Mr. Kejriwal as their messiah; the ultimate symbol was his night out on the streets in Delhi winters. This shift is causing the party think tank to shift gears. Populism over governance, (as is evident from their six point development agenda) and activism over policy reform appears to be the tactic of the party today. Staying in power meant being subjected to scrutiny every single day, making enemies, taking hard decisions and exhibiting a reformist agenda. Quitting has opened up a million opportunities to continue to engage in what they are good at-activism! Assuming that they are able to get ten to fifteen seats in the up-coming Lok Sabha elections, a five year time period is plenty to indulge in party rhetoric and mobilize the masses against the ruling party. Quitting has given them this chance.”

Adding another perspective to support AAP Govt’s quitting, Manish Saraswat, 1st year student, FIIB conveyed- “I definitely support AAP decision because bringing Jan Lokpal into force was their main motive and if that is not being done there is no point of compromising with the mission that AAP had visualized. Moreover since his own MLA’s had started withdrawing support there was no other way left expect forming a new majority government at the state and then making the reforms that Kejriwal desired.”

A Sign of Defeat

On the other hand, Bharti Khurana, 1st year student, FIIB was of the opinion that AAP’s crucial decision is equivalent to accepting defeat and is a result of the inability to stand up to the expectations of public. Ms. Bharti added, “People not only belonging to Delhi but the people of many states of India had a belief that Arvind kejriwal could make a difference and would eradicate corruption from India’s political system. But his resignation has not come off as a good step. Instead of resigning from the post he should have fought for the Lok Pall Bill. This resignation after only being 48 days in power would actually ruin the party’s image.”

Another participant who would like to keep his identity anonymous joined this motion of thought and said, “Democracy is not a child’s play! Millions of bucks are spent to make an election work out and to put a party at the throne. Resigning in a matter of 2 months means a need for a re-election soon, which will ask for a few millions worth of money to go down the drain once again. This childish step by the AAP Government clearly indicates lack of focus, absence of clarity and inability to sustain adverse situations. We, the general public do not expect such kind of loose ends from a ruling party.”

Disclaimer: The article has been written by a member of Corporate Communication team at Fortune Institute of International Business, but the views in the article are that of the participants and do not reflect the views of the Institute.