Kerala elections: How LDF has historically addressed and analysed poll defeats

The CPI(M) and the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) in Kerala are currently analysing the factors behind the major electoral setback they suffered. Notably, the CPI(M) Polit Bureau has already declared that the moral responsibility for the LDF’s defeat in Kerala does not rest with former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan alone, but with the collective leadership of the party.

“There is no question of a single comrade alone taking responsibility,” the Polit Bureau stated. The party is now undertaking an in-depth review to identify the weaknesses that contributed to the setback. The PB has also said that the opinions of party members and well-wishers will be taken into consideration during the review process, and that necessary course correction and rectification measures will be initiated to strengthen the party.

In this context, THE WEEK analyses how the CPI(M) and its allies assessed election results after every major electoral defeat since the formation of the LDF.

1982 mid-term elections

In 1980, the Left Democratic Front (LDF) had formed a government led by E.K. Nayanar. But by October 20, 1981, the LDF lost its majority in the assembly after Congress (A), Kerala Congress (M) and Janata (Gopalan) withdrew support from the government and joined the UDF. In the subsequent mid-term elections, the LDF lost.

After the elections, CPI(M) ideologue and then party general secretary E.M.S. Namboodiripad – popularly called EMS – analysed that although the Indira Front lagged behind the Left Front in campaign activities such as meetings and demonstrations, it had managed to silently influence voters, bring them to polling booths and secure votes. According to EMS, the Left had failed to take this seriously enough.

EMS also observed, in a self-critical tone, that every constituent party of the Left Democratic Front, including the CPI(M), had several weaknesses, which adversely affected both election work and the general functioning of the parties.

He further noted that Christian religious leaders, along with forward and backward caste organisations, had united and worked intensely to defeat the Left Front in Idukki, Kottayam, Alappuzha and Kollam. However, he made no such observations regarding Thiruvananthapuram district.

Meanwhile, the now-defunct SRP, backed by the SNDP, argued that the victory of the UDF and the decline of the LDF reflected a backlash against the CPI(M)’s anti-reservation stance towards reservation-eligible communities.

1991 assembly election

In 1991, the incumbent LDF government, which had been in power since 1987, decided to seek a fresh mandate a year before the completion of its term. The decision was influenced by the announcement of Lok Sabha elections and the Front’s strong performance in local body elections held the previous year. However, the UDF went on to win the election.

After the polls, the CPI(M) State Secretariat assessed that the new political situation created by the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and the “unholy alliance” between the UDF and the BJP were the primary reasons for the Left Front’s defeat. The Secretariat noted that the impact of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination on the election had been completely unexpected.

“Realising that they could not defeat the Left Front and come to power on their own, the Congress and its allied parties entered into a secret alliance with the BJP,” the CPI(M) alleged, while claiming that around three lakh of the over 68 lakh votes secured by the UDF had come from BJP supporters.

Meanwhile, the CPI assessed that the defeat stemmed from the inability to objectively evaluate the political situation in the state. Criticism also emerged within the CPI that the decision to hold assembly elections early had been ill-timed. Another interesting criticism raised at the time was that the impression that V.S. Achuthanandan would become the chief minister had alienated a section of voters.

Interestingly, former Kerala chief minister and CPI leader C. Achutha Menon wrote in Kalakaumudi that the argument that the Left had been defeated because of a secret understanding between the BJP and Congress (I) was merely an excuse and an attempt to evade responsibility. Achutha Menon also sharply criticised the moral decline within Marxist parties, arguing that they had succumbed to practices such as nepotism and communal considerations.

2001 assembly election

In 2001, the LDF and the CPI(M) suffered a heavy defeat, with the Front’s tally reduced to just 40 seats. By then, the factional rivalry between V.S. Achuthanandan and Pinarayi Vijayan had already intensified within the CPI(M).

The CPI(M) Central Committee report listed numerous reasons for the assembly election defeat. However, the only individual specifically named and criticised in relation to the five years of governance was then finance minister T. Sivadasa Menon. Initially, the CPI(M) was reluctant to acknowledge that administrative failures of the E.K. Nayanar government had contributed significantly to the setback. However, alliance partners strongly argued in LDF meetings that anti-incumbency and governance failures were major factors, and the CPI(M) eventually stopped countering that position.

Weaknesses in financial management and controversies surrounding the DPEP educational reforms were also found to have contributed to the defeat. The Front further assessed that measures such as handing over toddy shops to cooperatives and bringing foreign liquor distribution under the public sector had been undertaken with good intentions, but had politically backfired.

The LDF also concluded that it had failed to convincingly communicate that the fall in agricultural crop prices was entirely the responsibility of the Union government.

2011 assembly election

The 2011 election proved to be one of the closest assembly contests in Kerala’s history, with the United Democratic Front (UDF) defeating the Left Democratic Front (LDF) by a margin of just four seats.

The CPI(M) Central Committee report after the election stated that Achuthanandan’s anti-corruption campaign had benefited the Front electorally. However, references to VS triggered heated debates within the State Committee. Some leaders from the official faction aligned with Pinarayi Vijayan, including leaders from Kannur, reportedly turned against the central leadership during these discussions.

The official faction rejected the argument that Achuthanandan alone was responsible for the LDF’s improved performance. However, they too acknowledged that VS contesting as a candidate had benefited the Front.

Notably, the party had initially denied a seat to VS, but later reversed the decision under public pressure. Incidentally, the Central Committee report also criticised the manner in which the issue of his candidature had been handled.