The CPM has finally bid farewell to its third front dream, two years after its experiment failed, leading to an intense internal churning. The focus will now be on forging a “Left and democratic” front, but interestingly that long-term goal would not stop the party from cooperating with regional parties on specific policy and other issues, and entering into state-level electoral understandings. The ambitious idea of forging a third front — the party prefers to call it a third alternative — has been a feature of its political line for many years. The setback in the 2009 general elections, however, came as an eye-opener. The CPM had in the past also talked about a Left and democratic alternative but its attention was on forging a third front which has now been officially dumped.
The draft political resolution — to be adopted at the CPM’s 20th Party Congress in April — says the party should “develop and maintain relations” with regional parties which are not with the Congress and the BJP, cooperate with them on an issue-to-issue basis, launch joint actions and forge “electoral understandings” with them as and when required.
But the “only real alternative to the bourgeois-landlord order” which is in place after two decades of economic liberalisation is the Left and democratic programme for which it has identified 12 “policies and demands”. CPM general secretary Prakash Karat said the party would take the initiative to draw Left-minded groups to a broader Left platform. Besides, it would strive to bring about a greater Left unity.
The third alternative fiasco in 2009 elections had triggered a churning within the CPM, with its main architect Karat coming under fire.
Many see the party’s decision to bid farewell to the third alternative goal as a setback for Karat. While releasing the draft, the CPM general secretary, however, justified the third alternative strategy of 2009, saying it was “an immediate requirement to meet an immediate situation”.
The draft resolution once again laments the fact that the party has failed to make any “substantial advance” outside Bengal and Kerala. In this context, it talks of strengthening the CPM’s independent role. Significantly, even while talking about Left unity, the CPM differed with CPI on many issues including the latter’s assessment of the reasons that led to the defeat in Bengal and Kerala.
Karat felt CPI’s conclusion that factionalism in CPM led to defeat in Kerala “misses the mark”. On Bengal, he said there must be a balanced understanding. While the CPM as the main constituent was prepared to take the blame for the defeat, it should be remembered that the Left Front led by the same CPM won seven consecutive elections.
