CPM secretaries may have 3 terms; Will Pinarayi go?
Tags:
In a desperate bid to save his job, the CPI(M) general secretary, Prakash Karat, and his supporters in the central committee have proposed limiting terms of secretaries of party committees, including the general secretary, to a maximum nine years.
The proposal adopted by the central committee at a two-day meeting in New Delhi on Sunday, will now be placed for ratification before the 20th party congress to be held in Kozhikode in April 2012.
If Mr Karat, who is completing his second term, and his team fail to push it through, he might have to quit the top job as strong resentment is brewing against him and his policies. Approval could grant him another three years.
The party’s Kerala secretary Mr Pinarayi Vijayan could, however, come under immense pressure to step down as he is already in his third term. Interestingly, the opposition leader and Mr Vijayan’s arch-rival, Mr V.S. Achuthanandan, conveyed the central committee decision to the media even before Mr Karat could officially announce it.
Mr Achuthanandan said the plan was to give young leaders a chance.While the veteran seems to be pinning hopes on the central committee decision to see a leadership change in the state, party sources said Mr Vijayan might continue for another term.
They said the limit could not be implemented ahead of the party congress and hence it would be difficult for the rival faction to press for Mr Vijayan’s removal.
The sources said a change was likely only if Mr Vijayan, who took over as party secretary in 1998, decides to step down on his own. Even that possibility is remote as such crucial decisions are taken with the consent of party committees, not left to individuals.
Observers said VS’ move to bring the issue up for a discussion at the crucial area conferences beginning later this month was deft. But if Mr Vijayan gets re-elected before the party congress, he could survive the storm.
The state conference in Thiruvananthapruam in February is his opportunity as Mr Karat has made it clear that the move to limit terms would have no “retrospective effect”.
Post new comment