For Pakistanis who see PTI as an alternative political force, AAP’s trajectory serves as a cautionary tale
By Iftikhar Gilani
The recent debacle of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) led by Arvind Kejriwal in India’s national capital Delhi assembly elections has raised a question mark on unconventional parties that once mesmerized the middle class.
Many draw parallels with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) led by cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan. The political trajectories of both parties share striking similarities. Both emerged as anti-establishment forces, promising to uproot corruption and introduce a new brand of governance.
Both were hailed as saviours by a disillusioned middle class, and both built their appeal on the rhetoric of clean politics, people’s empowerment, and transparency. However, their journeys ultimately led to disillusionment, exposing the harsh realities of populist politics.
Imran Khan and Arvind Kejriwal both came from outside traditional politics. Imran Khan, a cricketing legend, transitioned from sports to activism, forming PTI in 1996. For years, his party remained on the fringes, but his persistence, coupled with public frustration over dynastic politics and corruption, catapulted him to power in 2018.
His slogan of Naya Pakistan resonated with the youth and urban middle class, who saw him as an incorruptible alternative to the entrenched political families of Pakistan.
Similarly, Kejriwal an IIT topper, rose to prominence through the India Against Corruption (IAC) movement in 2011. A former bureaucrat, he capitalized on the anti-corruption wave to launch AAP in 2012. His victory in the 2013 Delhi Assembly elections was historic, and his refusal to compromise on the Jan Lokpal or Accountability Bill initially strengthened his credibility.
By 2015, AAP swept Delhi’s elections, winning 67 out of 70 seats. Kejriwal’s image as a common man, wearing simple clothes and rejecting VIP culture, cemented his appeal.
I vividly recall a moment from 2011 when I first met Kejriwal. He had resigned as Joint Commissioner in the Income Tax Department, yet he chose to travel by public transport. After our meeting, I expected to escort him to a waiting car, but instead, he headed towards a crowded bus stop. His simplicity was striking—he wore nylon sandals, carried a modest bag, and exhibited no signs of entitlement. This was the man who had inspired millions to believe that a commoner could challenge India’s political elite.
Similarly, in 2013, when Kejriwal first became Chief Minister, I visited the Delhi Secretariat. I recall seeing his ministers standing in queues, waiting their turn like ordinary citizens. Health Minister Satyendar Jain was among them, as was Social Welfare Minister Rakhi Birla, who arrived in an auto-rickshaw. The atmosphere was charged with optimism as if the corridors of power were finally accessible to the people. For a while, it seemed as if governance had been redefined.
Both leaders positioned themselves as crusaders against corruption and entrenched elites, drawing massive support from urban middle-class voters disillusioned with traditional political parties.
Populist Rhetoric and Governance Challenges
Both PTI and AAP styled themselves as movements rather than conventional parties. They portrayed themselves as disruptors who would dismantle the old political order and introduce people-centric governance.
Their early years in office saw some populist initiatives—Kejriwal focused on subsidized electricity, education reforms, and healthcare in Delhi, while Khan introduced social welfare programs like Ehsaas and Naya Pakistan Housing Scheme.
However, governance challenges soon emerged.
PTI struggled with economic management, inflation, and a weak policy framework. Khan’s inability to work with institutions, including Pakistan’s powerful establishment, led to his eventual ouster.
Similarly, AAP’s expansion beyond Delhi into Punjab and other states proved disastrous. The party’s top-down leadership style, internal conflicts, and lack of experienced administrators weakened its effectiveness.
Over time, Kejriwal’s leadership turned increasingly centralized, bordering on dictatorial. The man who once stood in queues with ordinary citizens began making unilateral decisions without consulting his party.
His meetings became inaccessible, his engagements tightly controlled, and dissent within AAP was stifled. By 2015, founding members Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav were expelled for questioning his leadership, signalling AAP’s transformation from a movement to a one-man show.
Both PTI and AAP, despite their initial promises, gradually adopted the same political tactics they once opposed. Imran Khan, who once condemned turncoat politicians, welcomed defectors from PML-N and PPP into PTI, diluting the party’s original vision. Likewise, Kejriwal, who had vowed to remain an alternative to Congress and BJP, formed strategic alliances that contradicted AAP’s founding principles.
Corruption allegations also tainted their reputations. PTI faced scrutiny over foreign funding and governance failures, while AAP became embroiled in a liquor policy scandal that led to the arrest of Deputy CM Manish Sisodia and later Kejriwal himself in 2024. AAP, which had prided itself on transparency, stopped publishing donor lists in 2016, raising concerns about financial irregularities.
Kejriwal’s shift from a simple, frugal lifestyle to a lavish official residence further alienated his supporters. Similar criticism was directed at Khan for his government’s handling of the economy and perceived hypocrisy in governance.
Electoral Setbacks and Road Ahead
Both parties faced significant electoral setbacks. AAP’s vote share declined in the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections, plummeting from 62 to 22 seats. The middle-class voters who once championed Kejriwal’s cause abandoned him, feeling betrayed by his compromises and failures. In Pakistan, PTI’s grip on power weakened as its relationship with the establishment soured, leading to Khan’s removal from office.
Despite setbacks, both leaders retain loyal followings. Khan remains immensely popular, particularly among the youth and urban voters, who see him as a victim of political engineering. Kejriwal, though significantly weakened, still governs Punjab and maintains a national party status.
For Pakistanis who see PTI as a revolutionary force, AAP’s trajectory serves as a cautionary tale. The allure of anti-establishment politics often fades when leaders fail to navigate the complexities of governance. Charismatic leadership alone cannot sustain political movements—structural reforms, policy consistency, and institutional collaboration are essential.
The downfall of AAP highlights how populist movements, despite their noble intentions, can fall into the same traps they seek to dismantle. The Pakistani middle class, still hopeful for Khan’s return, must critically assess whether PTI can break this cycle or if it risks following AAP’s path of self-destruction.
The journeys of Imran Khan and Arvind Kejriwal underscore a fundamental truth: revolutionaries must transition into effective administrators if they wish to leave a lasting impact. Otherwise, their movements risk becoming mere footnotes in history—promising change but ultimately reinforcing the status quo.
