By P. Sreekumaran
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The hallmark of a political party or front is its ability to turn even adversity to account. Such an opportunity has presented itself to the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) in Kerala, which has been shaken to the core by the devastating defeat it has suffered in the 2026 State Assembly election.
It is but natural that the LDF is in a state of shock and disbelief. That is understandable, given the magnitude of its loss. But the need of the hour is to shake off the feeling of diffidence and disappointment and snap out of the blue mood. The task of identifying the causes of the defeat and applying the correctives must start right away. And the CPI(M)-led LDF has the resolve, will power and organisational strength the daunting task entails. After all, the Left parties have faced worse situation in the past and bounced back in style.
A close look at the facts and figures is necessary to put things in perspective. No doubt, this is the LDF’s worst Assembly performance in over four decades. In every election since 1982, the LDF had polled at least 43. 5 % of the vote, its previous low being 43.48% in 2016 and 43.7% in 2001. For the first time, the front has fallen below the 40 per cent mark, the figure for 2026 being 37.34% – over six percentage points below the that previous low, and more than 11 points below the LDF’s all-time high of 48.63%. Its tally has plummeted from 99 in 2021 to just 35 in 2026 – a drop of 7.1 percentage points from its 2021 show.
In 2021, the LDF created history by securing an unprecedented second consecutive term. But it suffered a setback in the local bodies elections held last year. And its hopes of reversing that trend have not materialized as is evident from the debacle in 2026.
Both the CPI(M) and the CPI have recorded similar vote shares – close to 39% in the seats they contested. But ally Kerala Congress(M) fared badly, drawing a blank. The party lost all the 12 seats it contested. Even its chief Jose K. Mani bit electoral dust, again, in Pala, his father K. M. Mani’s pocket borough. Another LDF constituent, the RJD managed to win one seat. As for the CPI(M), the party contested 77 seats but won only 26. The CPI dropped from 17 to 8 of the 24 seats it contested.
Conversely, the UDF has won the 2026 polls with a volte share which is its highest since the 2001 election. The UDF polled an impressive 46.55 %, which is second only to its 2001 performance of 49.05%. In the process the Front bagged 102 seats a gain of 62. The Congress contested 92 seats and won 63, an improvement of 42 seats over 2021. Its vote share recorded a 7.14-point rise, and the party polled 45.03 %. Ally IUML won 22 out of the 27 seats it contested as against its tally of 15 in 2021. The Kerala Congress won seven out of the 8 seats it contested. Another ally, the RSP which drew a blank in 2021, emerged victorious in 3 out of the 4 seats it con tested. The CMP, KDP and RMP, part of the UDF won one seat each.
As for the BJP, the party again opened its account in the State Assembly, winning three seats. The NDA’s vote share rose 1.79 percentage points to 14.20%. The party came second in as many as six constituencies. But its vote percentage has come down sharply from the 19% it secured in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.
It is time to analyse the factors which caused the massive LDF defeat. Topping the list is the strong anti-incumbency factor. The LDF circles deny it. But the fact is it was most pronounced. The huge margins with which the IUML candidates in particular and the other UDF candidates in general won is self-explanatory.
Equally important was the rebellion by a few CPI(M) leaders who contested against the party candidates in Payyannur, Taliparamba and Ambalappuzha. All the three won with handsome majorities, sending shock waves in the CPI(M) camp. The most prominent among them is G. Sudhakaran, a CPI(M) veteran, till he left the party and contested as an Independent backed by the UDF. In Payyannur, which the party has never lost, the CPI(M) suffered a humiliating defeat to V. Kunhikrishnan. He left the CPI(M) after the party renominated T. I. Madhusoodanan without looking into the charges of financial mismanagement against the MLA over diversion of funds from the party’s martyrs fund. The decision created such an outrage that thousands of CPI(M) activists voted against the official candidate.
In Taliparamba, T. K. Govindan ended the CPI(M)’s long-standing hold on the seat . Govindan had quit the CPI(M) in protest against the nomination of P. K. Shyamala, wife of party secretary M. V. Govindan. The decision resulted in attracting the charge of nepotism and favouritism against the CPI(M). Here again, a large number of CPI(M) cadres voted for Govindan, causing the defeat of Shyamala. The result is being construed as the leadership’s failure to correct anti-democratic tendencies.
Next is the alienation of the minority votes – especially that of the Muslims. What made the Muslims abandon the LDF was the refusal of the LDF leaders to criticize the intemperate anti- Muslim outbursts made by the SNDP boss Vellappally Natesan. The LDF paid a heavy penalty for this failure.
Another reason has been the arrogant public conduct of a few LDF leaders. This deepened the LDF’s disconnect with the people and created an aversion in their minds against the front and the Government. Unless the front leaders learn appropriate lessons from the defeat, the disconnect will become more pronounced.
In a shocking development, the figures show that there has been a massive erosion – over 12.5 lakh votes to be precise – of CPI(M) votes. Of this around four lakh votes have gone to the BJP, whose vote share has shown a rise of four lakh votes! The extent of the erosion can be gauged from the fact that even Pinarayi Vijayan trailed behind for six rounds before winning with a reduced margin – from over 50,000 in 2021 to less than 20,000 in 2026. The strong anti-incumbency wave was clear from the defeat of 13 ministers and the LDF convener. The LDF drew a blank in five districts: Malappuram, Wayanad, Ernakulam, Kottayam and Idukki. It suffered shocking losses strongholds like Kozhikode where it won only 1 out of 13 seats. A similar fate befell the front in Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram its previous strongholds.
Last but not the least is the need for the party to assert itself. A major reason for the LDF debacle is the failure of the CPI(M) party organization to point out the lapses of the Government. It may be mentioned that when Pinarayi was the party secretary, he asserted the party’s control of the Government in line with the communist policy. The incumbent party secretary M V Govindan failed to play that mediatory, interventionist role expected of the party secretary effectively. The result was the highly personalised management style of the Chief Minister – a point made by the CPI in its internal assessment of the reasons for the LDF debacle. If only the party secretary had intervened, much of the damage could have been averted. This is an issue on which the CPI(M) will have to do a lot of introspection.
There is another reason why the CPI(M) must initiate immediate course correction. Failure to do so could cause the party the loss of its national party status. There is an urgent need to woo back the CPI(M) cadres who have left the party. Significantly, the rebels who contested from Taliparamba and Payyannur are on record that they would never join another party. All that they want is for the CPI(M) to take corrective steps!
At the end of the day, the CPI(M) in particular must strongly resist the onward march of the BJP in the State. Significantly, the three seats which the BJP has bagged are CPI(M) sitting seats. This task is of utmost importance. It brooks no delay. Otherwise, the fate that befell the CPI(M) in West Bengal and Tripura could overtake the Kerala unit as well. That is a thought too dreadful to contemplate. The task is cut out for the LDF leaders. They must shed inertia and bend all their energies to the task of arresting the advance of the saffron march. The Left must get it right. That is a historical necessity. (IPA Service)
