Does Kejriwal have it in him to convert those who believe in the anti-corruption cause into votes? He has certainly shown an ability to organize and in media relations, he can teach professionals politicians a thing or two. Perhaps, he also knows some alchemy, which will allow him to campaign for money. But unless he is prepared for a long haul, which can go on for years, and come up with solid ideas that will improve the lives of citizens, his efforts will soon flounder.

The television mikes will follow him for sometime. His social media savvy followers will ensure Twitter buzz, but voters are likely to be unimpressed with both, his high-profile attacks and his pie-in-the-sky notions of real democracy. And without the ability to win significant votes, Kejriwal’s party will be doomed to be a marginal player in the political stakes.

In its short existence, the new party announced by Kejriwal has given notice of a game plan. It has released a vision document, with all manners of pious intentions and it has gone into attack mode, targeting—to begin with—Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law, Robert Vadra. Both these moves indicate that it is yet to fully get out of activist mode that it is used to and make the shift towards becoming a political party. This is an important distinction since, as a party, it should be aiming to win in elections, rather than just raising issues or pointing fingers.

Though India has scores of political parties, not many serious and independent parties have emerged in last two or three decades. Parties like Trinamool Congress and NCP have both broken away from the parent party that is the Congress. Similarly, Raj Thackeray left the Shiv Sena in 2006 to launch his own Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS). All of them centre round the founder who maintains an iron grip and also provides direction and leadership. It is impossible to imagine the TMC without Mamata Banerjee, as much as visualizing MNS without Raj Thackeray, who is the most visible symbol of his party. Both, however, had learnt their political skills elsewhere before they branched out on their own.

The one exception to the rule is the BSP, which Kanshi Ram founded in 1984. He was not an experienced politician and the BSP grew out of social organizations that he formed and nurtured. It took years of hard work to give BSP some shape and electoral clout. Mayawati became Chief Minister for the first time in 1995 in a coalition, but had to wait till 2007 before winning the UP elections on her own. Even today, despite its massive presence in UP, the BSP has not managed to establish power base in other states.

Kejriwal, who is the latest to join the political arena, comes from a background very different from Pawar or Thackeray. Indeed, he would hate to be compared with them. But he would do well to learn from the examples of those who came before him. Mamata was a street-level activist who gave the ruling CPI-M sleepless nights in West Bengal while Pawar, too, began at the grass-root level in Maharashtra before moving up the ladder.

Kejriwal’s intentions are noble—he wants to cleanse the political system—but that is no substitute for organization building, ideology and plain simple hard work. To this can be added leadership and, of course, fund raising. Merely mouthing platitudes about selecting clean and incorruptible candidates means little if the voters do not know anything about them or do not buy into the message. The vision document speaks of doing away with red lights of top of official cars and letting the people decide on every piece of legislation, but will that convert into votes?

Ultimately, that is going to be real challenge. No political party can amount to anything if the voters do not back it. That is, perhaps, the reason behind constituting a political party in a democracy—to win seats to enter the legislative process, whether at city, at state or national level. For this, its programme, its ideology and leadership have enthuse the voters. (IPA Service)