Opinion: 'Delhi has only one CM, and that is Arvind Kejriwal', understand the real meaning of Atishi's statement

Atishi's shocking statement

This statement is surprising for two reasons. First, as the Chief Minister, his primary responsibility is towards the people of Delhi. Waterlogging after rains, uncontrolled pollution, water shortage, all these are symptoms of bad governance. But instead of talking about these issues, he has made it his sole objective to make Kejriwal the CM again. He has put the interests of the party leader above the interests of the people. By giving priority to internal organisational matters in its external communication, the Aam Aadmi Party is making the same mistake that other established parties have repeatedly made. Knowingly or unknowingly, the message is going out that the party is engaged in serving the interests of the leadership rather than representing the interests of the people.

The culture of sycophancy is increasing in politics

It may be natural to unite around a leader in times of crisis, but Atishi’s statement reflects a broader, more systemic issue that pervades Indian politics: the ‘culture of sycophancy’. This trend, where party members prioritise loyalty to the leadership over public service, is not limited to AAP but pervades the entire political spectrum. The danger lies not just in narrowly defined party priorities or a fundamental shift from democratic principles, but in the party itself. When political discourse is more focused on pleasing the party leadership than on meeting the needs of citizens, it creates a dangerous disconnect that alienates parties from the very people they claim to represent.

If you don’t do this…

Perhaps if Atishi had chosen to talk about her obligations to the people of Delhi rather than her obligations to Kejriwal, the challenge might have been greater for her, who would have been perceived as trying to carve out an independent space and thus seen as a challenge to his leadership. This is a perpetual dilemma in Indian politics, where the search for a temporary replacement or placeholder is always fraught with the possibility of losing power altogether. As a result, Indian political culture has evolved in a way where, for party leaders outside the top leader, public interest is almost always expressed as an extension of what keeps the top leader in power. The flip side is that when party members express independent views on public interest, it is often misinterpreted as a challenge to the leadership. This misunderstanding ignores the natural differences that exist between people, even when they are members of the same party and pursue similar objectives.

Not right for both the party and the leadership

This ultimately has negative consequences for both the leadership and the party. Such tendencies degrade political parties over time. This is because equating control over a party with conformity inhibits the very elements that keep parties connected to their constituents: dialogue, discussion, and feedback. To prevent this loss, parties must foster internal forums for debate where disagreement is not seen as rebellion but as part of a robust dialogue and reconciliation around a common ideology rather than leadership. Otherwise, sycophancy will replace genuine solidarity and long-term commitment.

Open sycophancy is often pretentious, an attempt to prove loyalty in an environment full of opportunism. But those who fall for the bait often do so at the cost of their self-esteem. Sycophants may seem credible in the short term, but there are many instances where the most vocal, most outspoken among them are often the first to switch allegiances at a convenient time and then become the other side's biggest sycophants. This tendency has created a widespread culture of opportunism, distrust and instability within and outside political parties.

Differing opinions are ignored

Furthermore, sycophancy fosters a culture of groupthink, leading to alienation, where differing opinions and perspectives are marginalised in favour of reinforcing the leader’s agenda. This undermines the party’s ability to meaningfully engage with the masses and its ability to evolve and adapt according to people’s changing needs. Also, a culture of sycophancy breaks the ongoing ideological connection with the wider public, making political parties look like closed clubs for private gain, leading to voter alienation.

What is needed for the future of the parties?

Finally, fostering a political culture that values ​​honesty and self-restraint over sycophancy is essential for the future of political parties and for Indian democracy. The challenge for the party leadership is not how to stifle independent voices, but how to allow leaders to set their own priorities and express their views about the public good while maintaining party unity. Doing so will make the political party more resilient and strengthen, not weaken, the party leadership. The real challenge for Atishi and Kejriwal is to reorient their leadership towards meeting Delhi’s immediate needs. Only by focusing consistently and exclusively on the public good can Kejriwal achieve the position he seeks – that of a good aam aadmi (common man).

(The author is executive director, Future of India Foundation)