After CPI(M)'s recent electoral setback, mounting criticism from within the party’s district committees signals a possible erosion of Vijayan’s once unchallenged authority.
Published Jun 26, 2024 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jun 26, 2024 | 6:47 PM
File photo of Pinarayi Vijayan. (X)
Pinarayi Vijayan, the indomitable figure of the CPI(M), who has long been revered for his assertive leadership both at the state and national levels, is now facing a critical juncture in his political career.
As the CPI(M) grapples with the fallout from recent electoral setback, mounting criticism from within the party’s district committees signals a possible erosion of Vijayan’s once unchallenged authority.
It’s these developments that prompt one to ask questions like,
– Can Pinarayi Vijayan, the stalwart of the CPI(M), overcome the internal party turbulence and external electoral disappointment to reaffirm his leadership?
– Will the recent electoral setback and rising internal critiques signal the beginning of the end for Pinarayi Vijayan’s reign over the CPI(M)?
Vijayan’s ascent within the CPI(M) is a tale of formidable political acumen and strategic maneuvering.
As the party secretary, the position which he held for 17 years from 1998, Vijayan demonstrated an ironclad grip over the party’s apparatus, effectively quelling dissent and steering the party through turbulent times.
His first tenure as the chief minister of Kerala further cemented his reputation as a decisive and unyielding leader.
Vijayan showcased remarkable crisis management and coordination capabilities during several crises, including the devastating floods, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Nipah virus outbreak.
His approach to governance is characterized by meticulous planning, unwavering discipline, and a readiness to confront challenges head-on. His leadership reflects a blend of pragmatism and ideological steadfastness, ensuring that his vision for Kerala’s development is pursued with unwavering resolve.
However, starting from his second tenure as the CM to the recent election results, the period has cast a shadow over his leadership, sparking a wave of introspection and critique within the party ranks.
The recent Lok Sabha election have been a litmus test for the CPI(M) especially for Vijayan.
Despite his robust governance model, which emphasized welfare schemes and development projects, the party suffered unexpected losses. This electoral debacle has emboldened critics within the party, particularly at the district level, who are now vocalizing their discontent.
District committees, traditionally seen as the backbone of the CPI(M), have raised pointed critiques against Vijayan during the post-election analysis sessions.
They argue that Vijayan’s leadership is marred by a tendency to be unapproachable and overly authoritative. His remarks often reflect a rigid stance, and his perceived aloofness has raised concerns among fellow leaders.
Additionally, his stoic silence on corruption charges against him and his daughter has further fueled discontent, with many questioning his transparency and accountability.
These internal criticisms highlight a growing unease with his otherwise pragmatic and ideologically steadfast leadership, suggesting that Vijayan’s previously unchallenged authority is now being actively questioned.
The question is, can it be considered that critiques emerging from the district committees are indicative of a broader shift in the internal power dynamics of the CPI(M).
Vijayan’s once-unquestionable authority is being challenged not only from within but also outside by constituents like CPI and KC (M). They are now leveraging the poll debacle to call for introspection and change.
According to Joseph C Mathew, a keen observer of left-wing politics, the rising criticisms against Pinarayi Vijayan signal a decline in his once unassailable popularity within the CPI(M).
“This was unheard of before. No one dared to criticize him,” Mathew told South First.
“Vijayan dismantled the party’s traditional system of self-correction and criticism, consolidating power and becoming increasingly authoritarian. The current wave of criticism suggests he is losing his grip,” he said.
Mathew also noted that the district committees are more alarmed by the erosion of the party’s core base votes than by the mere loss of elections. This erosion signifies a deeper, more troubling shift in the party’s foundational support.
At the same time, political commentator Sreejith Panicker candidly told South First a notable shift from past narratives.
“In 2019, the party attributed similar outcomes to the national political climate. This time, however, they couldn’t evade the truth: there was unmistakable anti-incumbency coupled with governance shortcomings,’ he remarked.
Yet amidst this admission, Sreejith highlighted what he perceived as a paradoxical stance within the party.
“There’s a contradiction in how the party views failure,’ he noted. “On one hand, they acknowledge the disconnect with public sentiment (anti-incumbency), and on the other, they laud Pinarayi Vijayan as a steadfast leader.”
According to him, this dual perspective underscores the complexity of internal party dynamics, where acknowledging setbacks coexists with unwavering faith in Vijayan’s leadership prowess.
“For Vijayan, the path forward is fraught with challenges. Reasserting his grip on the party will require not only addressing the immediate concerns raised by the district committees but also fostering a more collaborative leadership approach” said a district committee member.
“Engaging with dissenting voices and decentralizing decision-making processes might be crucial steps in regaining the trust and support of the party’s grassroots,” he added.
(Edited by Shauqueen Mizaj)
(South First is now on WhatsApp and Telegram)
