In her very first statement, Delhi’s new Chief Minister Atishi made it clear whom she serves. She said, “There is only one CM in Delhi and his name is Arvind Kejriwal.” She further said that her “only aim” is to make him CM again.
This statement is shocking for two reasons. His primary responsibility as chief minister is to the people of Delhi. In fact, the signs of governance collapse are all around us – flooded roads after rain, unchecked pollution, water crisis – but instead of talking about these and other civic issues, he has made his sole objective to re-install Kejriwal as CM, putting the interests of the party leader above the interests of the public. By foregrounding internal organisational preoccupations in its external communications, AAP is making the same mistake that established parties have made at one time or another – to their inevitable detriment – of inadvertently communicating that the party exists to serve the interests of the leadership rather than to represent the interests of the people.
It may be natural to rally around a leader in times of crisis, but Atishi’s statement is an example of a broader, more systemic issue that pervades Indian politics: a culture of sycophancy. This phenomenon, where party members prioritise loyalty to the leadership over public service, is not limited to the AAP but pervades the entire political spectrum. The danger lies not just in narrowly defined party priorities or a fundamental shift in democratic principles, but in the party itself. When political discourse focuses more on pleasing party leadership than addressing the needs of citizens, it creates a dangerous disconnect, alienating parties from the very people they claim to represent.
It is quite possible that if Atishi had chosen to talk about her obligations to the people of Delhi rather than her obligations to Kejriwal, she would have appeared to be trying to carve out an independent niche for herself and would thus have been seen as a challenge to his leadership. This is a constant 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 installed the top leader in power. The result is that when party members express independent views on public interest, these are often misinterpreted as challenges to the leadership. This misperception ignores the natural and inevitable differences that exist between thoughtful individuals, even when they share a common platform and purpose.
While this intra-party dynamic may seem reasonable, it ultimately has negative effects on both the leadership and the party. A common outcome is the inevitable decay and decay of political parties over time. This occurs because equating control over a party with conformity stifles the elements necessary for parties to remain connected to their constituents—dialogue, discussion, and feedback. To prevent this decay, parties must foster internal forums for debate where disagreement is not seen as disloyalty but as part of a robust dialogue and reconciliation is found in common ideology rather than in leadership alone. Otherwise, sycophancy will replace genuine solidarity and long-term commitment.
Open sycophancy is often a performative act, an attempt to prove loyalty in a landscape rife with opportunism. But those who engage in sycophancy often do so at the expense of their self-esteem – qualities essential to honesty and long-term commitment. In the short term, sycophants seem credible, but there are many instances where the most vocal, most outspoken among them are often the first to switch allegiances when convenient – and then become the other side’s most vocal sycophant. This trend has created a widespread culture of opportunism, distrust and instability within and between political parties.
Furthermore, sycophancy fosters a culture of groupthink, leading to alienation, where diverse viewpoints are marginalised in favour of reinforcing the leader’s agenda. This undermines the party’s ability to meaningfully engage with the masses and weakens its capacity to evolve and adapt according to people’s changing needs. Equally, a culture of sycophancy severs the ongoing ideological connection with the wider public, making political parties seem like closed clubs for private gain, leading to voter alienation.
Ultimately, fostering a political culture that values honesty and self-restraint over sycophancy is essential to the long-term health of political parties and Indian democracy. The challenge for party leadership is not how to stifle independent voices, but how to allow leaders to express their views and prioritise public interest while maintaining party unity. Doing so will make political parties more resilient and strengthen party leadership – not weaken it. For Atishi and Kejriwal, the real challenge is to reorient their leadership to meet Delhi’s immediate needs. Only by focusing diligently and exclusively on public good can Kejriwal regain the position he seeks to occupy – the do-gooder aam aadmi.
Disclaimer
The views expressed above are the author’s own.
End of article
