A Constructive Agenda for the AAP [Arvind Kejriwal]

Despite missteps, Arvind Kejriwal and his party could move beyond an attacking strategy to improve our polity

Shyam Ponappa  |  

January 1, 2014

The turn of events that catapulted Arvind Kejriwal and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to power in Delhi may have flabbergasted them as much as anyone else. It might all fizzle out if they take a hard line, following the vengeful path they espoused during their campaign, thereby losing the chance to govern with outside support. But what if they take a more constructive approach? If they govern at least for some time, it could seed some real improvement. At best, acting responsibly in the public interest while eschewing the populism that has worked so far, they could become a major party. Even if the AAP is reduced to a swing vote, it could still have a salutary effect on all parties. This consideration of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats shows why.

Strengths

The AAP has attributes favouring the public interest:

• integrity (despite some failings);
• openness, transparency;
• clean, transparent election funding;
• antipathy to feudal trappings/"VIP culture";
• belief in systems (perhaps).

Given Mr Kejriwal's engineering education, his admiration of the Delhi Metro, and his efforts to appoint officers of integrity in key positions, it is possible that integrity, rationality and a systems approach may prevail in governance. Despite anomalous manifestations on the path to power, popular pressure may now hold the AAP and its members to objective standards, besides compelling other parties and politicians to aspire to these standards. Witness Rahul Gandhi's denunciation of the ordinance to protect convicted lawmakers, or his intercession on the Adarsh Commission report (although the Bharatiya Janata Party, unfazed, is seeking electoral gains through sectarian alliances in Karnataka). The other major development is that Mr Kejriwal has emerged as a strong, charismatic leader. This factor alone, which could send the party and the man hurtling in either a positive or negative direction, is of profound importance, because we have sorely lacked such leadership.

Weaknesses

The AAP and Mr Kejriwal also have negative attributes that go against the public interest. They have displayed a defiance of established order combined with a readiness to take to the streets, and a tendency to exclude non-believers. One could argue that this is required to effect change in the face of our predatory politics. But the AAP's populist electioneering is difficult to justify except that it was a winning strategy for the party and Mr Kejriwal. Retrograde ways - such as operating through coteries, a self-righteous belief in their moral superiority, and confused socialism - are likely to end badly for them, for the public, and for the economy.

There's little evidence of systems yet. In fact, quite the contrary in their manipulative histrionics, including the reduced electricity charges and free water. Mr Kejriwal's contradictory behaviour could lead to a personality cult that subverts professionals with objectivity and integrity, and results in more anarchy. For instance, branding all tax inspectors as corrupt, or asking "honest officers" to approach him directly, thereby encouraging breaking ranks instead of instilling coherence and esprit de corps. The problem will be if these headstrong acts bankrupt and demoralise the capital.

Opportunities

Looking past the hurdles starting with a vote of confidence today, January 2, in the Assembly, establishing more realistic expectations, and so on, it is possible to conceive of the AAP taking a positive or a negative arc - a high road or a low road. So far, in getting to power, the AAP and Mr Kejriwal have excelled in attacking the establishment and criticising the government, the Opposition, and all politicians and bureaucrats. Having seized the crown of thorns by forming the government, the attacking strategy alone and destructive tactics are of no use. They must now define realistic goals, put together coalitions and workable strategies, and do what it takes to achieve them. This is very different from making dramatic, unrealistic election promises to the gullible, and playing to a headline-seeking media.

They have begun with what looks like a rash fulfilment of unreasonable promises, unless some real domain experts have looked into the finances and know undisclosed but sound ways to fund the treasury. Given their commitment to transparency, they will presumably share these financial details with the public soon. Otherwise, they are just irresponsible politicians grabbing power to loot the treasury. 

Threats

There are other worrisome legacies, too, such as the commitment to radical decentralisation and direct democracy. In practice, where these have worked, there has been intense preparation in the citizenry, as in Switzerland. Attempts at less rigorous experimentation, such as in California, destroyed the strengths of a well-developed market, bankrupting an economy about the size of India.¹ There is certainly a role for local community "mohalla sabhas", but it has to develop and evolve with responsible citizenship, and leadership. 

Hopes

So what can we hope for? That Mr Kejriwal and the AAP:

• concentrate on effective and efficient service delivery in law and order, infrastructure, ie electricity, water and sewerage, roads, transportation, and the like, and not on vindictive politics;
• use competent people with domain expertise to address and overcome the daunting challenges in seeking a transformation;
• define objectives with all stakeholders, and not only their concept of the "aam aadmi";
• follow the discipline of systematic, goal-oriented flowcharts, project management, and cash flows;
• drop populism for a social-democratic philosophy, with government as a responsible partner;
• in terms of game theory, adopt a collaborative, community-oriented "stag hunt" approach instead of the contentious "prisoner's dilemma" model.²

The difficult transition will be to convert everyone to being responsible, law-abiding citizens, the antithesis of what we are today. Yet, the potential for clean, transparent election funding is more real because of their achievement, although much has to be done before it is realised system-wide. If they can avoid the arrogance associated with power and transition constructively on the lines indicated above, they may well succeed in bringing about radical change for the better.

---

                                                                             shyam no space ponappa at gmail dot com

1."The challenges of direct democracy", Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, July 7, 2011
2. "Changing our game", Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, September 5, 2012

Another relevant link:

"What's Needed Is User-Centric Design, Not Good Intentions", Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, January 3, 2013

Comments (3):

Abraham Karammel

I have been an NRI in Germany for more than 35 years. Observing the chaotic democracy, very poor development, chronic poverty etc in my native state Kerala and my motherland India, I searched for an efficient and functioning governance system and discovered two – Singapore and Porto Alegre city of Brazil. However, Singapore’s very authoritative ‘Meritocracy’ is not practical in Kerala and India. Porto Alegre’s very systematic, self-correcting, perpetually improving, very flexible, decentralised and people-centred Participatory Budgeting (PB) is world’s best democratic governing process. It is also world’s most researched one as well. Kerala’s/India’s Local Self-government Institutions (LSGI) badly need a personality-independent, system dependent and very efficient governance process. I believe ‘Porto Alegre Innovation’ is exactly the process suitable for any village, town or city in any country. It is being adapted in more than 40 countries around the world!

05-01-2014 12:07:38 | Reply

Kim J Singh, OCI in Germany

The SWOT analyses done by Mr. Shyam Ponappa have enabeled me to get a feel of tge situation. Change has been overdue in the Indian scenario. So congratulations to AAP for their success, the praise at this time goes to the Delhi voters. AAP has a golden opportunity to bring India on a new trajectory. The immediately noticeable initiatives can do wonders at no cost to set the ball rolling. Demanding from all public servants to do duty and being polite is a Zero new cost measure that will work bothways. Second, an on going massive cleanliness campaign to clean up and keep residential areas By the residents, for the residents, while the muinicipality takes care of the garbage collection from central neighbourhood locations. Similarly, in CP and all shopping areas the shopkeepers themselves are the first level cleaners of the area outide their own shop.... In an attempt to reduce traffic, private vehicles should not be on thre road all the 7 days of a week. There are ways that can be thought of quite easily. To enhance tax base, pass a law that all purchases must be done with a receipt. Such receipts,, in turn, autonatically will be entitled for attractive draws - weekly, monthly, yearly.... There is no end to creativity, to deign and enforce systems that are reward driven....These are a few micro level initiaves. On the macro level, it is the governence, transparency and the well being of the public at large rather than pressure groups that should be in the the focus. Delhi needs visionary and charismatic but most importantly strongheaded doers.

04-01-2014 23:07:40 | Reply

• Suresh Singh
  A very good article, I and many apolitical people in favour of cleaner politics and better governance will agree with this. The article shows a clear roadmap for the success of the new government in Delhi. Any attempt to change the system quickly can be fatal. AAP need to have a long term plan to clean up administration keeping welfare of people in mind. Secondly, there is need for inducting some sector specific professional people in the team, this is of course not to doubt the credibility and competency of the AAP leaders.
  4 hours ago | Reply
• 
  Trainspotter
  If AAP were a startup, CEO Kejriwal can already be judged to have hit the ball out of the park with an oversubscribed IPO. Hats off to him and his team for transitioning from a political non-entity to running Delhi within a matter months! Continuing the analogy, the task before him now is to become a sustainable organization that delivers long-term value to its stakeholders. His attacks on "VIP culture" and corruption are spot on, but his socialist economic leanings are naive at best and possibly dangerous long-term to the very aam aadmi he hopes to serve. He should take full advantage of the likes of V Balakrishnan etc. to understand the vital importance of limiting government / cutting red tape to unleash healthy markets and private competition in our economy.
  14 hours ago | Reply
• 
  R Varadarajan
  You have hit the nail on the head Mr Ponnappa. But I wonder whether the parties concerned would ever pay heed to such advices. They only prefer to accept those who accept their views without any doubt what so ever and all others are corrupt. The very fact that they offered frebies to catch votes has defeated the very purpose for which the party was formed. To eradicate corruption in Politics & Govt they have decided to corrupt the voters instead with freebies and concessions. As I had been stating in the past none of the polticians or Political parties are bold enough to educate the Public at large and voters that " Democracy is a RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT A RIGHT", AAP included - because such insistence on responsibility would get them votes. Thus AAP's objectives and Election manifesto seem to contradict each other.
  02-01-2014 15:10:52 | Reply

Changing Our Game

Adopting 'co-ordination models' like the Stag Hunt instead of pursuing narrow self-interest helps reduce contention and improve outcomes.

Shyam Ponappa / Sep 05, 2012

Consider the handling of irregularities in spectrum allocation and in coal mining rights. Instead of swiftly ring-fencing problem areas where there are allegations of culpability supported by prima facie evidence, then striving for good policies going forward, the ruling coalition and the Opposition are in a war of attrition. What began with the United Progressive Alliance’s turning a blind eye to the spectrum awards has turned into the Bharatiya Janata Party’s heedless flailing to tear down their opponents. Meanwhile, the confusion created by the pronouncements of the Comptroller and Auditor General and previously of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has vitiated conditions for constructive reform. Any solution that fails a populist screen is likely to be guillotined in the streets.

Contention versus co-operation


There seems to be quite a contrast between our manifest contentiousness and our apparent friendliness. From our chaotic ways in traffic to dealing with each other and with our surroundings more generally, often, self-centred, short-term opportunism appears to override our better nature. As evidenced in the coalgate stand-off in Parliament, or our inability to establish adequate infrastructure, this cuts across all levels of individuals and groups. The irony is that no one gains, except the perpetrators and supporters of rip-offs and stand-offs. They, too, gain only in the short run, unless they’re caught out. In the long run, everyone is worse off except the rogues who get away.

How did we get to this self-destructive state, and how might we get out? Insights from game theory could provide some perspective. One stark fact is that our interactions are predominately driven by self-interest that leads to contention, on the lines of a Prisoner’s Dilemma,1 instead of a co-operative group- or common-interest model like the Stag Hunt.2

The two models are described briefly below.  For those who want to skip the description, read on after the next two paragraphs.

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Two men attempting a burglary with a weapon, A and B, are caught, with insufficient incriminating evidence for the burglary. They are questioned separately and not allowed to communicate. If both deny the burglary, they escape a 10-year sentence and will be imprisoned for two years for possession of a weapon. A is told separately that if B pleads guilty and A does not, B will get a reduced sentence of four years, while A will get 10. So A has an incentive to confess and get four years, too. A is also told that if he confesses, he can go free, while B gets 10 years. Therefore, the logical choice for A is to confess. The same logic applies to B. So, both confess and get four years, instead of both denying and getting only two years. The logical trap is that acting in one’s self-interest without communication and co-operation leads to a worse position.

Stag Hunt

A group of hunters agree to wait for a stag in their assigned positions. If one sees a hare and shoots at it, the stag takes flight and the group loses out. The group and individuals gain most if individuals stick with their commitment and get the big prize. However, individuals may be tempted to defect by a less risky, smaller pay-off like a hare.

[The original story implies that hunters must stay in their positions.  If they are tempted to chase after a passing hare, the hunt fails (if the stag comes by their post).]

Logical trap: Self-interest leads to contention and lowest equilibrium

In zero-sum games like cricket, tennis or football, where the total pay-off is the same no matter who wins, one participant gains at the expense of another. In most real-world encounters, however, players can improve their outcomes by co-operation and co-ordination. In other words, many everyday situations can be likened to non-zero-sum games, where one party’s win is not necessarily another’s loss. If individuals (or teams/groups) pursue their self-interest without co-operating and co-ordinating with other players, the pattern is like the Prisoner’s Dilemma, and a logical trap leads to a position of lowest equilibrium (the Nash Equilibrium). This position results from each player/group making the best decision that he/she/they can while taking into account the decisions of the others, and no one can act independently without worsening their position.

Co-ordinating better outcomes

By contrast, if players can (a) co-operate and (b) decide through effective co-ordination, everyone gains. Examples are centrally sponsored projects executed in Opposition-run states – for highways or power, for example – or the backing of political parties for India’s 123 Agreement with America on nuclear co-operation.

Can we escape a logical trap and contention by adopting models that elicit co-operation and co-ordination? Game theory suggests that models based on trust and co-ordination like the Stag Hunt work for a big prize (the stag). The question is whether it is possible to move to a co-ordination model and, if so, how to do it. While there are no simple fixes, the University of Vienna’s evolutionary game theory models hold out some promise through providing insights into how patterns of co-operation can spread in populations.3

There’s also the long, slow haul of structured education and training in collaborative problem solving. The techniques that need incorporation in our curricula from junior school through higher education, vocational training, and at work, are co-operative problem solving as an approach, and project management as a method. The latter starts with a clear definition of goals and objectives, followed by standard operating procedures covering the gamut of the logic of process flow for tasks, setting milestones/sub-objectives, critical paths, and individual and group responsibilities on timelines.

A second aspect where governments have to step in is institutional design — boldly initiating systems and processes after eliciting convergence in each sector from all stakeholders on sound plans in the public interest. Driven by goal-directed project management, this requires systematic action braving populist pressure and distractions.

These initiatives would significantly improve India’s ability to act in the public interest.

---

shyam (no space) ponappa at gmail dot com

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner’s_dilemma

2 “The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure”, Brian Skyrms, 2004: http://bilder.buecher.de/zusatz/22/22362/22362426_lese_1.pdf 

3 VirtualLabs, Christoph Hauert: http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/ 

[Since moved: http://wiki.evoludo.org/index.php?title=Evolutionary_Games_and_Population_Dynamics]

Evolutionary Dynamics – Cooperation and Defection - from the link below:

Cooperators provide a benefit to other individuals at some cost, while defectors attempt to exploit such common resources. This leads to a classic conflict of interest between the individual's and the community performance - and hence the dilemma. The game dynamics then determines the relative frequencies of the different strategies in a population.