The internal review's finding that personalizing the campaign around Pinarayi Vijayan weakened the party's initiative has found resonance among critics who believe the strategy undermined the CPI(M)'s collective identity. They argue that by placing Vijayan at the center of every message, the party sidelined its cadre, local leaders, and grassroots networks that are essential for sustained electoral success. This top-down approach created a disconnect between the party and its base.
The adoption of a 'soft Hindutva' stance and messaging reminiscent of Yogi Adityanath further alienated the party's traditional secular and Left-leaning supporters. Critics say this confused the electorate about the CPI(M)'s ideological position, making it appear as though the party was chasing votes at the cost of its principles. The result was a loss of identity without gaining significant new support.
Moreover, the focus on Vijayan made the party vulnerable to anti-incumbency and personal attacks. When the Chief Minister faced criticism, it directly harmed the party's image. The review's acknowledgment of this weakness validates concerns that a single-leader strategy is unsustainable and risky. In contrast, a more distributed leadership would have allowed the party to withstand individual setbacks.
The critique concludes that the CPI(M) must return to its collective leadership model, emphasizing party workers and local issues. For the 2026 assembly elections, the party should de-emphasize Vijayan's personal brand and rebuild its organizational strength from the ground up to ensure a more resilient and ideologically consistent campaign.