May I assume that you have read or heard news about or viewed live coverage of the ongoing crisis in Aap (Aam Aadmi Party; a newly launched political party in India which grabbed power in the state of Delhi recently.)? If you have not, here are some refreshing links: OneIndia; Rediff; MControl.
Let us analyze this event purely from management and leadership perspectives:
(1) First thing which struck me was that the meeting was happening at a private 'Resort' where entry was restricted to a few while 'aam aadmi' did not know what was happening inside. Bhushan's demand to video-tape the proceedings was met with great scorn and heart-burns. Then some of Yadav's supporters were denied entry. When Kejriwal had said that he would take oath as Delhi CM in a stadium, it meant something. A stadium symbolized "openness" and "equality" while a "closed door resort" symbolized "non-transparency" and "inequality".
(2) A leader is built by taking leadership during crisis. This is why Rahul Gandhi never got respect as he went absconding during every crisis. Kejriwal was the same leader who used to challenge his opponents into "open debate" in front of live cameras. He was always ready to clarify his positions. Portions of Kejriwal's speech or conversations which we have listened to recently sound like a fuming Sonia Gandhi. Kejriwal's group have hardly displayed any inspiring leadership during this crisis.
(3) A good leader has to remain 'accessible'. This is why managers who advertise "open door policy" appear so happy about it. During yesterday's meeting, we never saw Kejriwal or his select group outside the venue interacting with the party's "volunteers". We never saw Kejriwal even talking to the media, clearing his position on the scandals or about yesterday's ruckus. When leaders are inaccessible, they run the risk of adversaries taking their pole positions. We saw this happening yesterday when anti-Kejriwal Yogendra Yadav sat on Dharna in front of the "volunteers" - dharna being the most branded IP of Kejriwal. Party members may fall in love with other leaders for doing what they were earlier used to seeing Kejriwal doing.
(4) When AAP had established an 'internal Lokpal', it had sent a strong message to all. That the party was ready to walk the talk; the party stood for all the values it wanted other parties and govts to possess. But when Kejiwal's team asked their internal Lokpal Admiral Ramdas not to come to the meeting, it was as if they wanted "righteousness" and "truth" to turn a "blind eye". This decision made Kejiwal and his party appear like "hypocrites".
(5) People expect "continuity" as much from a leader as they expect "vision". This crisis and the manner in which it was handled gave a clear message how much the party had changed after gaining absolute power in a state (of Delhi). That was people's worst fear - that this party and its leaders were appearing honest until they were out of power and would also change after gaining power. The party has been successful in letting its members' worst fears come true. It has been a PR disaster. It has been a crisis mismanaged. It has been an anti-climax.