Ignored cadres, misread Vijay wave: DMK review panels explain poll defeat

Chennai: Growing disconnect with grassroots workers, over dependence on inhouse and external poll strategy agencies, and failure to grasp the magnitude of support for TVK were among the key factors that led to DMK’s defeat in the assembly poll, according to DMK panels formed to identify reasons for the debacle.

A total of 19 committees, each having two members, formed on May 16 had submitted their reports to former chief minister M K Stalin after travelling across the state, interacting with party workers and people.

A significant portion of the feedback focused on the rise TVK. According to the reports, cadres repeatedly warned senior leaders and district secretaries about chief minister C Joseph Vijay’s growing popularity among women and young voters, particularly in urban areas. But the signals were ignored.

“Many functionaries on the ground sensed the popularity of Vijay and conveyed it to senior leaders. But seniors underestimated the shift,’’ another committee member said. The reports also cited ineffective social media outreach.

Surprisingly, the committees identified the flagship Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Thittam as an unexpected political setback. While the programme benefited lakhs of women, many women felt excluded from the implementation process. “Those who were left out of the scheme despite applying had turned against DMK,’’ said a DMK leader. In addition, a section of beneficiaries, roughly 40 %, had not voted for DMK, he said.

According to committee members, feedback gathered from cadres and voters also showed a disconnect between a section of DMK rank and file with the party. “The administration became more transparent and bureacrat-driven, but the party lost its connect with the people,” a panel member said.

The reports found that the party’s governance-centric approach weakened its organisational network at the grassroots. Welfare schemes were largely projected as govt initiatives where officials had a greater say than local party functionaries, which limited the party’s ability to convert welfare delivery into electoral support. “Recommendations made by local functionaries for beneficiaries under various schemes were often overlooked. This failed us in big way as we could not create loyal voters,” said a member of the panel.

Another recurring criticism was the increasing dependence on agencies, including in-house teams, to assess public sentiment and implement welfare programmes. Several cadres reportedly felt that party workers who interacted with voters daily were no longer being trusted. “Many have expressed that growing influence of individuals close to Stalin and their direct intervention in party affairs had created friction in some places,’ said a member of a panel.

Stalin has assured the committee members that the reports would be considered and due action would be taken to address the faultlines.