Left in the Lurch: CPI(M)'s Post-Mortem Stops Short Of Fixing Accountability

The CPIM in Kerala,  has been undertaking a review of elections over the last month at various levels to identify the reasons for the setback in the last assembly election. The review report was presented and approved by the state committee after three days of deliberations

“The reports submitted by various committees had suggested that the LDF was poised to return to power after polling. The election results, however, proved those assessments completely wrong,” M V Govindan, CPI(M) state secretary reportedly told the state committee during its extensive review of what is being described as the party’s worst electoral setback in decades. The stark mismatch between the party's internal assessments and the actual outcome underscored the growing disconnect between the organisation and ground realities, a concern that surfaced repeatedly during the review process.

Following the defeat, the party directed its lower-level committees to undertake a comprehensive review of the results and engage in discussions “without fear.” In keeping with the CPI(M)’s hierarchical organisational structure — stretching from branch committees to the state secretariat — detailed review meetings were held across different levels of the party.

During these discussions, cadres at the grassroots level reportedly voiced sharp criticism of the party leadership and former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, holding them responsible for the unprecedented electoral rout. While the state committee acknowledged the growing disconnect between the party and the public, its final review report omitted the criticisms directed at the leadership and the former chief minister, drawing discontent from sections of the cadre.

Vijayan’s perceived authoritarian style, shortcomings in the LDF’s election campaign, and the coalition’s relatively soft approach towards community leader Vellappally Natesan—who had repeatedly made Islamophobic statements—were among the main factors cited by various party committees for the electoral debacle.

“The party conducted a comprehensive review of the electoral setback at every level, from branch committees to the Politburo. As many of the discussions at the grassroots level indicated, party members were well aware of what had gone wrong and expected the leadership to take responsibility for the defeat. However, despite widespread calls for a change in style and serious introspection, the leadership appears to be sidestepping these concerns in an effort to protect itself. In the long run, this could have serious repercussions for the party,” says political analyst and author N. P. Chekkutty.

The defection of three senior leaders — all of whom went on to win their respective elections — has further exposed the challenges facing the party leadership. Significantly, two of them contested in Kannur, long regarded as the CPI(M)’s strongest bastion.

T. K. Govindan, a former district secretariat member, and K. Kunhikrishnan, a former district committee member, quit the party alleging nepotism and corruption within its ranks. Backed by the Congress-led UDF, both candidates secured comfortable victories in constituencies that had traditionally been considered CPI(M) strongholds, dealing a symbolic blow to the party in its own heartland. Former minister G Sudhakaran left the party and won with the support of UDF.

“The decision to field the state secretary’s wife as the candidate in Taliparamba, which many members viewed as an instance of nepotism, and the allegations surrounding the embezzlement of the martyrs’ fund in Payyannur were discussed extensively at various levels of the review meetings. There was palpable resentment towards the leadership among both leaders and cadres who participated in these discussions. However, the leadership appears to be creating a smokescreen rather than addressing these concerns directly,” said a district-level leader, speaking on condition of anonymity.

In the review report adopted by the state committee, the CPI(M) alleged that the BJP had transferred its votes to the UDF in around 30 constituencies, contributing to the opposition alliance's landslide victory. However, even many party members and sympathisers remain sceptical of this explanation.

“It is politically suicidal to attribute such a major setback to the actions of political opponents alone,” says Ramakrishnan, a CPI(M) sympathiser from Kannur district.

A key criticism that emerged from the grassroots-level review meetings was Pinarayi Vijayan’s decision to continue occupying a position of power by taking up the role of Leader of the Opposition, despite concerns over his advancing age, health issues and mounting criticism within sections of the party.

“There is palpable unease among many leaders over the centralisation of power within the party. Even discussions in the politburo point to this growing concern,” says Chekkutty.

“Pinarayi Vijayan, who served as the party’s state secretary for 17 years and then as Chief Minister for a decade, presided over the political and ideological decline of the CPI(M). Over nearly three decades, he systematically sidelined leaders who could have emerged as alternative centres of influence. What we see in the party today are leaders who are largely mirror images of Pinarayi Vijayan. This is often the consequence of excessive centralisation of power,” says Dr. J. Prabhash, political scientist and former Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Kerala University.

The party leadership, however, has rejected attempts to attribute the electoral setback to any one individual. State secretary M. V. Govindan has argued that the CPI(M) functions on the principle of collective decision-making and that it is therefore inappropriate to single out individual leaders for blame.

“Many of the criticisms raised, including by some party cadres, have been influenced by media narratives,” the party noted in its review report, defending the leadership against allegations that it had ignored the concerns raised during the review process.

National Repercussions

The CPI(M)'s defeat in Kerala has also had repercussions at the national level. Differences within the INDIA bloc came to the fore after the party general secretary M A Baby wrote to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge objecting to remarks made by Rahul Gandhi against the CPI(M) in Kerala. The party subsequently deputed its Rajya Sabha leader, John Brittas, to represent it at an INDIA bloc meeting, reflecting the unease in its ties with the Congress.

“These developments reflect the depth of the crisis confronting the CPI(M) today. The party is grappling with multiple challenges — a crisis of leadership, ideology, social vision and political outlook. In its present form, the CPI(M) appears to have little new to offer.The Left in India has never been a dominant electoral force. Yet it once represented a broader political imagination that resonated beyond its electoral strength. Today, that imagination has largely receded from political discourse. The Kerala unit of the CPI(M), which exerts considerable influence over the party at the national level, bears significant responsibility for this decline,” Prabhash adds.

The CPI(M) won just 26 seats in the 140-member Kerala Assembly, while its allies secured nine more, reducing the LDF to its weakest tally in decades. The defeat has significance beyond Kerala. With the fall of the LDF government, the Left is no longer in power in any state in the country for the first time in more than five decades. The contrast with the party's earlier dominance is striking. Before 2011, the CPI(M)-led Left Front governed three states simultaneously on several occasions and was a formidable force in national politics. Today, confronted with the prospect of political irrelevance, the party has embarked on an extensive exercise of introspection at various organisational levels. However, the publication of the review report has left many within the party unconvinced. While the report acknowledges a growing disconnect between the party and the electorate, it stops short of assigning responsibility to any individual leader or section of the leadership. As a result, the very leaders who presided over the party's decline have been left in charge of steering its revival, raising questions among cadres about the credibility and effectiveness of the introspection process.