A Quote by Arvind Kejriwal

It's the public which decides its Chief Minister. We live in a democracy. — © Arvind Kejriwal
It's the public which decides its Chief Minister. We live in a democracy.
In our party, for the post of the prime minister or chief minister, there is no race, and nor does anyone stake their claim. Who will be the prime minister or chief minister, either our parliamentary board decides on this or the elected MLAs, in the case of chief minister, and MPs, in the case of the prime minister, select their leader.
While security of national leadership is of paramount significance, expenditure on permanent civil structures at the family home of the prime minister and chief minister from public exchequer will be a burden on their conscience.
I never criticized Modi. All I said was that Modi cannot be a chief minister and still nurse prime ministerial ambitions. I only suggested that he should resign as the chief minister and then stake his claim to be prime minister.
Before I became a chief minister, I never thought that one day I'd be the chief minister.
In a democracy, the public has a right to know not only what the government decides, but why and by what process.
We have parliamentary democracy. It is the prime minister who runs the show, who is the chief executive of the country. The president must have powers defined under the 1973 constitution, nothing more.
We live inside a democracy, and you know, public will matters in a democracy. I just hope it's informed public will, and frankly, when the decisions are made, you understand the costs.
The trouble is that privacy is at once essential to, and in tension with, both freedom and security. A cabinet minister who keeps his mistress in satin sheets at the French taxpayer's expense cannot justly object when the press exposes his misuse of public funds. Our freedom to scrutinise the conduct of public figures trumps that minister's claim to privacy. The question is: where and how do we draw the line between a genuine public interest and that which is merely what interests the public?
I have completed 43 years in politics and have been a minister of state, chief minister, and a Cabinet minister. A person who survives so many years is bound to face some attacks. It doesn't affect me because I know the truth.
I might be popular, but that is not sufficient in a parliamentary democracy set-up. One has to assess every chief minister, his success and rating in terms of how far he has succeeded in developing his colleagues.
For a man once called the Indian Obama by the historian and public intellectual Ramachandra Guha, the diminishing of Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar could not be more dramatic.
KCR is not a Chief Minister, he is a cheap minister.
We are a democracy, and there is only one way to get a democracy on its feet in the matter of its individual, its social, its municipal, its State, its National conduct, and that is by keeping the public informed about what is going on.There isnot a crime, there isnot a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy.Get these things out in the open, describe them, attack them, ridicule them in the press, and sooner or later public opinion will sweep them away.
My view is that the signing of players should be a simple process. The chief scout identifies them, the manager decides who he wants, and the chief executive is dispatched to do the deal. It really is as simple as that.
Democracy is the wholesome and pure air without which a socialist public organization cannot live a full-blooded life.
Democracy, in the United States rhetoric refers to a system of governance in which elite elements based in the business community control the state by virtue of their dominance of the private society, while the population observes quietly. So understood, democracy is a system of elite decision and public ratification, as in the United States itself. Correspondingly, popular involvement in the formation of public policy is considered a serious threat. It is not a step towards democracy; rather it constitutes a 'crisis of democracy' that must be overcome.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!