Kochi: CPM state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan had unwittingly admitted that all is not well with the selection of party candidates for the forthcoming Assembly elections.
Speaking at a function in Thiruvananthapuram on Saturday, he stated that the party had not finalised its nominees and reports appearing are part of a conscious attempt by people interested in weakening the advantage the LDF enjoyed.
“The individual-centric discussions and talks are part of this strategy,” he said.
The CPM leader also blamed a section of the media for raking up such issues. It is obvious that the kind of revolts seen in the district committees against the possible candidates approved by the state leadership was never there in the party's history.
Posters sprang up and protest marches taken out across the state, questioning the choices of the party leadership, were something new to CPM.
Veteran CPM leader M.M. Lawrence said such an open expression of dissent was a manifestation of the factionalism prevailing in the party.
Usually, such displays of dissent were associated with Congress and United Democratic Front (UDF).
The media used to be full of stories connected with the jockeying for seats and the storm-in-the-tea-cup revolts by various leaders in UDF.
The seat sharing in CPM and LDF used to be largely a smooth affair till very recently. The first open defiance linked with candidate selection emerged during 2006 elections when veteran leader V. S. Achuthanandan was denied a ticket to contest.
A section of the party veterans blamed the leadership of Pinarayi Vijayan for the present state of affairs. According to them, the CPM was largely following a bottom-up approach in the selection of candidates, with the respective district committees doing most of the work.
Except for women, persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and eminent figures the state committee and state secretariat never used to play a significant role in it. The tradition was broken during the tenure of Mr Vijayan as the party secretary. He started a top-down approach.
In 2006 and 2011 elections, the state committee picked up most of the candidates and then sent the names to the district committees for their stamp of approval.
