Election results had thrilled the state on May 4. Now, the euphoria is over and the focus has shifted to government formation and introspection. However, both the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) and the CPM-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) continue to struggle in the aftermath of the verdict.
The UDF has failed to elect a Chief Minister despite securing a comfortable majority. One chair, but three aspirants. AICC general secretary K.C. Venugopal, senior leader Ramesh Chennithala and LoP V.D. Satheeshan have all thrown their hats into the ring and are waiting for the final decision. Flex board wars have erupted across the state backing different leaders. Finally, AICC observers Ajay Makan, Deepa Das Munshi and Mukul Wasnik arrived in Kerala to gauge the mood of Congress MLAs. The final decision has now reportedly been left to AICC chief Mallikarjun Kharge and de facto heads Sonia and Rahul Gandhi.
Meanwhile, dark clouds continue to hover over the LDF camp. CPI mouthpiece “Janayugam” opened the debate with an editorial stating that anti-incumbency caused the humiliating debacle. However, CPM leaders reportedly continue to believe that the LDF did not “deserve” such punishment. While CPI leaders appeared more willing to acknowledge public anger, CPM leaders were accused of attempting to escape political realities.
The CPM state secretariat and CPI state executive held separate meetings in Thiruvananthapuram on May 6.
Reports suggest that participants in both meetings alleged that former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and the top leadership were responsible for the election debacle. Some participants reportedly termed the defeat a “sought-after one”.
The CPM secretariat reportedly admitted that the party apparatus failed to read the mood of the people. Discussions reportedly pointed to failures in candidate selection and placement, including anomalies in districts such as Kannur. Cadres were allegedly reluctant to openly voice concerns due to fear of disciplinary action.
Leaders reportedly opined that candidate selection, organisational failures and the terminology used by Pinarayi Vijayan during the campaign contributed significantly to the defeat.
His controversial remarks against opponents during public meetings also came under criticism.
During one public interaction, when a cadre raised a question, Pinarayi allegedly responded by asking him “to go home and ask”.
Left fellow traveller Dr Sebastian Paul, former MP and MLA, reportedly stated that the election debacle was effectively a verdict against Pinarayi Vijayan.
He said Pinarayi behaved like an autocrat and that his language was unfit for a good administrator.
Participants at the CPI state executive meeting reportedly unleashed sharp criticism against the leadership of both parties.
Several CPI leaders reportedly believe that Pinarayi Vijayan should not take over as Leader of the Opposition. They argued that his statements against community leaders alienated minorities and that suppressing opposing voices had backfired politically.
CPI leaders also blamed the CPM leadership for failures in candidate selection and placement.
CPI Rajya Sabha MP P. Santhosh Kumar reportedly described the LDF debacle as “shameful” and demanded a new face instead of Pinarayi for the LoP post.
Meanwhile, senior CPI leader and former state assistant secretary K.E. Ismail stated on May 6 that the poll debacle was a “shock treatment” for the LDF. He said leaders should remember that people are the real masters and described the verdict as a hard blow to leaders who behaved otherwise.
He added that public dissatisfaction with the government’s performance was evident and pointed to setbacks in CPM strongholds as proof of cadre-level resentment.
According to him, the behaviour and performance of the former Chief Minister, ministers and party leadership must be seriously examined. He also stressed that winnable candidates should have been fielded.
Reports further suggest that not a single constituent within the LDF is willing to accept Pinarayi Vijayan as the Leader of the Opposition.
