The just-ended three-day deliberations of the CPI(M) central committee in Hyderabad, held to introspect on the causes of the Left’s watershed defeat recently in West Bengal and, to a lesser extent, Kerala, will not surprise the party faithful. If a terse single sentence from general secretary Prakash Karat can sum up the confabulations, it is this: “Election outcomes do not determine leadership changes in the CPI(M)”.

While not being caught offguard by this, the cadre down the line are apt to infer that their party is yet to migrate from cuckoo land.
As may be expected in the light of this, the flavour of the debates in the crucial party forum on such a key occasion was not shared with the media. Even those among the top leadership who differed with Mr Karat are likely to have spoken with forked tongues. Perhaps the giveaway is the absence — apparently on health grounds — from the meeting of former West Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, under whom the party bit the dust in a state it had ruled with an iron hand for 34 years. It may also be recalled that not long ago, in a widely reported media interaction, politburo member Sitaram Yechury did make an oblique reference to the possibility of a leadership change in the pedigreed Stalinist party. Not many would have abided with him, though, knowing the hallowed tradition in Communist parties worldwide.
Communist parties have been more about “democratic centralism” since Lenin’s day than about “democracy”. In Lenin’s era, there was a justification for this emphasis on account of Czarist repression. Today there is none, at least in India. Under democratic centralism, the leadership collective is responsible for failure or success, and no one leader is singled out for getting things wrong. It is a pity, however, that in an open era such as the 21st century, with a communications revolution gripping the world and a cry for transparency all around, the CPI(M) has chosen to cling to past patterns of conducting its affairs. Not that purges are unknown in internal party organisational systems. But these typically reflect power battles within, and have never been a response to the verdict of the “masses”, who are glorified only in principle. Nevertheless, it is a not a far-fetched idea that even in the CPI(M), a leadership change is likely to follow. But this might only be at the next party congress in April, and is likely to be the result of pressure from below. Left to themselves, leaders are loathe to bow out. This, of course, is true of all parties, more so of the bourgeois formations.
It is not clear if the Hyderabad conclave discussed anything of substance that was new. Mr Karat reiterated policy failures that led to Singur and Nandigram; he spoke of 41 per cent of the West Bengal electorate which still voted Left; and of the “gang-up” against the Left by all the other parties in the state. These points have been stressed so much they have left listeners tired. The crucial issue left unaired: Was it the failure of one or two policies that led to the Left’s debacle in such a defining way, or did the Bengal voter reject the entire culture of Left governance and its political idiom? It also seems the CPI(M) leadership was self-serving in claiming credit for the party’s near-victory in Kerala. The bitter truth has been glossed over that the creditable performance owed to the fact that V.S. Achuthanandan, the party’s iconic leader in the southern state, did so very well as he was seen to be standing up to his party’s leadership. It is doubtful if the truth will be sighted, if the CPI(M) top brass leave themselves immune to soul-searching.