Governance, Ideology and Electoral Fate: AAP's Journey in Delhi's Political Landscape

The trajectory of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) under Arvind Kejriwal has been one of the most intriguing stories in modern Indian politics. Born from an experimental model of “empathetic” governance, AAP rose to prominence in Delhi by emphasising public service delivery over the traditional left-right ideological divide.

“Empathetic governance” can be seen as a mode of administration centred on responsiveness to citizens’ everyday needs, offering tangible welfare benefits while often eschewing deeper ideological commitments or structural transformation of the economy and society. Charity and benevolence are proffered in the place of rights and debates.

Recent electoral setbacks, however, have prompted a re-examination of this governance-centric approach – particularly its long-term viability in a highly polarised political arena.

Genesis of a 'new' political paradigm?

Early on, AAP's strategy was fresh. It presented itself as an experiment in effective, people-centric governance rather than a movement anchored in classic ideological debates. By focusing on mohalla clinics, free public transportation for women and subsidised utilities, the party sought to build a direct, transactional bond with voters – offering immediate improvements in quality of life rather than dwelling on broader ideological agendas.

Unlike traditional parties – like the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – that have historically mobilised support through ideological commitments, caste-based coalitions, class-oriented welfare narratives, or religious identity appeals, AAP adopted a fresh approach, focusing on efficient public service delivery and everyday governance without embedding itself in these established ideological or identity-based frameworks.

One can argue that calls for public service are not as novel as they seem; from Adam Smith in the 18th century to contemporary advocates of minimum government, the emphasis has long been on the state's role in effectively delivering public goods and utilities.

The novelty lay not in the welfare measures themselves but in their populist packaging – framed as direct, morally-driven handouts for the poor, bypassing elitist politics and ideological debate. This resonated with the Delhi electorate, wary of identity-based politics, thus positioning AAP as a breath of fresh air – albeit within the relatively unique context of the National Capital Region and a fragmented Punjab.

'Empathetic' governance and its limits

Central to AAP’s style was a “politics of care,” where responsiveness to citizens’ day-to-day needs formed the basis of administrative legitimacy. While this approach earned widespread acclaim – especially from voters who directly benefited – skeptics cautioned that an over-reliance on delivering quick wins could become transactional.

Without a deeper ideological bond, public support might wane if economic conditions worsened or if service-delivery improvements hit a plateau, they cautioned.

Indeed, the question arises: Why can’t public service delivery alone be a rallying point instead of ideology? We do not seek to establish a causal relationship between ideology and electoral outcomes. However, as reflected in the 2024 and 2025 election results, ideology-based mobilisations proved more enduring and successful.

Effective welfare schemes may be compelling but they often lack the unifying vision required to weather political storms. More importantly such schemes worked doubly well when fused with or simultaneously delivered with an ideological offering. 

The 'sandwich alliance' and public service efficiency

AAP’s tenure in Delhi brought together affluent urban constituencies – who appreciated functional public services – and the underprivileged – who directly benefited from welfare measures. This “sandwich alliance” disrupted more polarising strategies of parties like the BJP.

Kejriwal’s emphasis on state efficiency was a recalibration of governance, suggesting that administrations could be responsive and transformative without resorting to divisive rhetoric. However, this same efficiency-first approach highlighted a deeper problem.

In more diverse political environments, i.e. states beyond Delhi, a governance model without a robust ideological core risks losing traction. Once its hallmark reforms are matched, or overshadowed, by competing agendas, the absence of a unifying vision becomes a serious vulnerability.

Disrupting the status quo?

Kejriwal’s rise also prompted broader shifts in Indian opposition politics. Traditional left-of-centre parties, long grounded in social justice and rights-based frameworks, found themselves overshadowed by AAP’s tangible policy outcomes. In some sense, the party’s governance experiments forced both, the right and the left, to rethink their strategies.

For the BJP, AAP’s emphasis on welfare rather than polarisation-based identity politics presented a competitive challenge. Although some labeled Kejriwal’s platform as “soft Hindutva”, the party’s core appeal lay in its promise to deliver critical public services effectively – an approach that did not revolve around ideological mobilisation.

After the 2020 electoral defeat, the BJP was forced to diversify its messaging to its core voters and other voters in a city that, for a time, seemed more captivated by civic improvements than by ideological narratives.

The BJP had to move away from its overt Hindu-Muslim messaging to topics like corruption and alcohol which were more appealing to people who were not the party’s traditional voters.

AAP's electoral defeat

AAP’s loss in Delhi renewed the focus on the resilience of entrenched ideologies in Indian politics. For years, the party’s governance model delivered favourable governance and electoral outcomes. However, it lacked a strong ideological backbone – a crucial factor in India’s heavily contested electoral sphere.

Many saw this defeat as a cautionary tale: even if voters appreciate efficient governance, ideological narratives can still sway electoral outcomes, particularly in periods of nationalistic or identity-driven fervour.

Beyond Delhi, AAP’s defeat signalled a power shift that further emboldened the BJP. With fewer constraints on its dominance in the capital, the ruling party could consolidate its position without a robust countervailing force. For the broader opposition, the message was clear: pragmatic governance alone might not suffice unless it is anchored in a compelling, long-term vision.

One of AAP’s lasting contributions has been its largely non-violent, civic-minded style of politics – a rarity in a system often marred by coercive tactics. This commitment to democratic norms boosted AAP’s moral standing. Yet, it also raised questions about whether a comparatively “soft” approach could effectively confront ideologically ardent competitors. 

Going forward

AAP’s early success had challenged dominant narratives by successfully demonstrating that administrative efficiency and welfare initiatives could captivate voters without heavy ideological baggage. However, as the novelty wore off and larger ideological battles reasserted themselves , the party's electoral victories seemed more and more difficult to sustain.

Good governance garners admiration but ideology-based mobilisations are still powerful in uniting voters around emotive, identity-oriented causes – the 2024 and 2025 results were proof of this.

The arc of AAP under Kejriwal – from a galvanising experiment in “empathetic” governance to a party inevitably facing electoral challenges – illustrates both, the promise and the pitfalls of prioritising administrative efficiency without a deep ideological framework.

While AAP’s focus on welfare delivery echoed age-old liberal economic principles, its packaging gave rise to hopes of a paradigm shift. Ultimately, Indian politics is shaped by more than just policy successes; enduring movements often rest on shared narratives that can unify people through crises and changing socio-economic tides.

The lessons for India’s opposition – and indeed for all political actors – are clear: public service delivery alone, while crucial, may not be enough to overcome well-entrenched ideological forces.

For sustained success, parties must weave a broader vision that speaks to collective aspirations and identities.

As India’s democracy grapples with the tension between pragmatic governance and ideological mobilisation, AAP's story serves as a reminder that both dimensions are essential for long-term impact.

Vignesh Karthik K.R. is a postdoctoral research fellow of Indian and Indonesian politics at KITLV-Leiden; and author of the forthcoming book The Dravidian Pathway: The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Politics of Transition in South India (C. Hurst & Co/ Westland Books/Oxford University Press 2025).

Raghunath Nageswaran is a PhD candidate at the Geneva Graduate Institute, researching the history of economic policymaking and federalism in postcolonial India through the lens of Madras State.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.