The CPM has been doing a lot of soul-searching post its decisive defeat in the West Bengal elections, besides its loss in Kerala. So much so, party politburo member Sitaram Yechury, 58, admits that serious mistakes were made in West Bengal that need to be corrected to win back the people's confidence. And yet, he sees a bright future for the left globally. Yechury talks Singur, the Palghat syndrome and the new left with Akshaya Mukul. Excerpts:

What is the CPM's analysis of its defeat in West Bengal?
There will be more in-depth analysis. Clearly, mistakes were made at three levels: political-tactical, administrative and organizational. At the central committee meeting in Hyderabad, preliminary analysis was done. The primary thing for the party is to overcome these weaknesses and, on that basis, strengthen its links with the people. The party in West Bengal has said they will undertake more in-depth analysis during the state committee meeting in July.

There has been a slew of analysis after the party's defeat in West Bengal. Many critics point out that the principle of democratic centralism is another word for tyrannical control of the leadership that often is the reason why the party fails to do course correction.

Yes, there would be certain areas that need to be strengthened. But this problem has been there since Lenin. He coined the term "tyranny of majority". In CPM, we are conscious of inner-party democracy. We practice it more vibrantly. In no other political party is political resolution submitted two months in advance and everyone is free to give comments. I think the election results should not be reduced to analyzing the fundamental aspects of a communist organization. If that was so, we would not have lost narrowly in Kerala. In Bengal, we still got 41% votes, more than many parties in power in many states.

Don't you think drawing solace like this is an act of self-deception?
Yes, there is no point in fooling ourselves and seeking to draw solace from these figures. It's good these things are there but it does not change the reality. Our vote share has fallen. We also cannot take solace that we were in Bengal for seven terms. While this might be true, it is no solace. We have to work hard to regain the confidence of the people. It is not the question of Bengal alone. We had presence in Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka that we do not have any longer.

In Bengal the biggest grouse of the common man, apart from poor administration, has been the oppressive party control of all aspects of local life — from acquiring a ration card to land acquisition. Do you agree?
Many of these factors are functional aspects of our leaders. That is not the way a party should function and this is not the way the party won confidence of the people.

In Singur, it was neither the first time nor the last time that land was acquired. It came soon after the victory in the 2006 election. The election was fought on the slogan of rapid industrialization. It was presumed the people had endorsed this plank. Therefore, the homework that the party used to do – sitting with villagers and hearing their problems – was not done. In Rajarhat, 1000 acres of land was acquired after months of homework. Jyoti Basu himself used to visit villages. But in Singur, not doing our homework backfired. That gave the opposition its opportunity.

Apart from discontent due to land acquisition, many have also pointed out that after land reform, small and middle farmers captured the party leadership that weakened the cause of landless farmers. Do you think this contributed to the anger of the peasants?
This was the experience in Kerala. We call it the Palghat syndrome. In Bengal the problem was different. For less than 1000 acres, 12,000 cheques were collected in Singur which means 12 families were living off one acre. Land reform led to fragmentation. It became unviable to sustain them. Their future improvement was only through future employment generation through industrialization. While many undertook this, others did not. If proper homework had been done, this would not have happened.

Apart from local mistakes in West Bengal, do you think the Left needs to rethink its ideological opposition to marketing its principles. At one point, the Left opposed bourgeoisie democracy and later had a rethink.
It is a complete misnomer to say the market has no place in the economy. As long as there is commodity production, there will be a market. But the market is not the most rational regulator that will protect the interests of the people. If you leave it to the caprices of the market, it would lead to an irrational situation. Just see how a slight mention of a relook into the Indo-Mauritius free trade agreement led to tanking of the market. At the Delhi party congress in 2005, we had said foreign capital is inevitable but it should be mutually beneficial, not a one-way loot.

Coming to the Left's future, many old comrades have demanded merger of the CPM and CPI. Is that a good idea?
There is no doubt greater unity among Left parties – it's a good thing. But a merger will become an agenda only if the reasons that led to the separation of the two parties are resolved.

But over the years, the differences between the two have narrowed down?
Yes, over the years the differences have narrowed down on political-tactical lines. More importantly, in mass movements we have been together. But the important issue is, do we get bogged down by ideological issues or forge unity.

The left is under threat internationally. How do you see the future?
This is a challenging time for the left but I see a good future. Wherever the communist party has come to power, it has delivered. Look at Greece. There have been 11 strikes in eight months. Left and liberals are making good advance. Look at Portugal. You see the left reasserting itself. I am not talking of Latin America where the left is doing very well. On the other hand, what is capitalism doing? It is turning corporate insolvency into sovereign insolvency by bailing out the same corporates. The burden of solvency is a government debt that is to be borne by people whose rights are being curtailed. In this situation, the left has a very good opportunity.

Has the time for the new left come?
We keep hearing about the new left but it is yet to crystallize into any body of theory. Unless you have an alternative body of structure, this left would only remain fashionable. Without a political structure, it cannot become an alternative to traditional left.