Governance Without Political Strategy is a Recipe for Defeat

 

Governance Without Political Strategy is a Recipe for Defeat

Thanks to INDIA Today for the picture

The last two blogs analyzed the Delhi election results and their implications for the BJP, whose victory remains questionable. This analysis now shifts to evaluating the critical mistakes made by AAP and its leadership in the run-up to the election, highlighting areas where strategic miscalculations may have contributed to their defeat.

One of the most significant failures was AAP’s decision not to file a counter-lawsuit against the BJP and its leadership when its members were arrested on what AAP claims were politically motivated charges. The legal system itself provided indications that these cases lacked merit, with judges instructing the ED and CBI that, in the absence of additional evidence, their cases against AAP leaders would not hold in court. Despite this, AAP failed to take legal recourse, instead taking its argument directly to the public. This was a major misstep, as public perception is still heavily influenced by legal proceedings. A lawsuit would have given AAP a legal counterpoint, reinforcing the idea that their leaders were being persecuted rather than relying solely on a narrative of victimization. Furthermore, BJP continuously argued that even if Kejriwal won, he could not assume office as Chief Minister, a claim that AAP left largely unanswered. A legal battle would have demonstrated confidence in the judicial system and provided voters with a stronger reason to question the BJP’s accusations.

AAP also missed an opportunity in terms of tax policy. While liquor revenue played a major role in the governance model, AAP could have implemented higher taxes on alcohol to not only increase state revenue but also position itself as a government committed to social welfare. A well-structured tax increase on alcohol, framed as a public health and revenue-generation measure, could have strengthened AAP’s stance on responsible governance rather than allowing the BJP to frame the liquor policy as a corruption scandal.

Another critical mistake was allowing the BJP to define social services as “freebies.” Kejriwal failed to challenge this branding and permitted the opposition to reduce the debate to a simplistic narrative that disregarded the broader economic benefits of social welfare. Instead of allowing its initiatives to be dismissed as handouts, AAP should have rebranded them as economic growth policies. Free education, for example, should have been positioned as an investment in human capital, ensuring that Delhi had a highly skilled workforce contributing to long-term economic development. Similarly, the free bus rides for women should have been restructured to avoid being labeled a freebie. AAP could have introduced an ID-based system where economically disadvantaged women received free travel, while those from middle and upper-class families were offered discounted fares instead. This would have prevented BJP from categorizing the service as a blanket giveaway while still ensuring access to public transportation for those who needed it most. AAP should have marketed these initiatives as economic stimulus measures aimed at increasing mobility and productivity rather than allowing them to be mischaracterized as election gimmicks.

On the issue of air pollution, AAP had the perfect opportunity to impose stronger environmental regulations, particularly targeting vehicle emissions. The drastic reduction in pollution levels during the COVID-19 lockdowns provided clear evidence that vehicular emissions were a major contributor to Delhi’s poor air quality. AAP could have introduced a carbon tax, directly linking vehicle usage to environmental costs. This tax would have discouraged excessive car usage, encouraged the adoption of electric vehicles, and generated funds that could have been allocated toward afforestation projects and pollution-reduction programs. A policy tying the number of miles driven to carbon tax rates could have reshaped Delhi’s approach to urban sustainability while simultaneously strengthening AAP’s position as a progressive government focused on long-term environmental solutions.

Healthcare was another area where AAP struggled to differentiate itself from BJP’s schemes effectively. While Mohalla Clinics have been widely recognized as a successful initiative, AAP failed to expose the inefficiencies and corruption embedded in the Modi government’s healthcare programs. The rising cost of medical care due to private sector exploitation of insurance-based schemes was a key issue that AAP should have highlighted. Hospitals artificially inflate costs when dealing with government-backed insurance programs, leading to a situation where even when an expense falls under coverage, hospitals increase prices to maximize reimbursement. When government payments are denied or delayed, the burden shifts to patients, many of whom are financially unprepared for such costs. Instead of engaging in a cost-comparison debate, AAP should have doubled down on its narrative that public-funded direct healthcare services, like Mohalla Clinics, prevent this cycle of medical inflation and ensure affordable treatment.

At its core, AAP’s biggest failure lies in its inability to balance governance with political strategy. The party is led by individuals with strong governance instincts but a limited understanding of political maneuvering. They focus on delivering results but often neglect the equally important task of shaping public perception. A successful political party not only implements policies but also ensures that people feel empowered rather than dependent. Voters need to perceive government services as investments in their future, not as handouts that can be easily dismissed or revoked.

The loss in Delhi should serve as a learning experience for AAP, helping them distinguish between governance and politics. If they internalize these lessons and refine their strategy, AAP could emerge stronger on the national stage. This election was not just about votes but about the evolution of a party that must now navigate the complex realities of Indian politics with a sharper focus on narrative control and long-term positioning.