The failure of the AMMK, led by T.T.V. Dhinakaran, to make major inroads into the AIADMK’s vote bank has put paid to his immediate plans to project himself as a strong alternative leader. Though the party fielded Independent candidates in the Parliamentary election and the Assembly bypolls, it was only able to cobble up an estimated vote share of about 5%.
Its star candidates — Thangatamilsevan, Palaniappan and Vetrivel — all disqualified MLAs, were not able to garner significant votes or even push the AIADMK front to the third place in the areas where the DMK front won. However, in some Assembly constituencies, it played spoiler for the AIADMK by securing votes in greater numbers than the victory/lead margins of the DMK candidates.
Mr. Thangatamilselvan, however, was on the defensive. “Basically, people wanted a change in both the Cental and State governments, and hence, voted against the BJP-AIADMK. That was their primary aim,” he said.
Political analyst P. Ramajayam said the focus of the AMMK, which was mostly on the AIADMK, was a major reason behind its poor show. “When the mood of the State was clearly anti-Modi, Mr. Dhinakaran didn’t project himself as being as much against Mr. Modi as the DMK did. The AMMK was targeting the AIADMK and Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami’s ‘betrayal’. But the ‘betrayal’ was more of an internal issue of the party,” he contended.
The AMMK’s fight was mostly internal and was not an ideological fight against the BJP, Mr. Modi and Hindutva, he said. “Moreover, there were no protests initiated by the AMMK over people’s welfare issues. Though Mr. Dhinakaran was regularly issuing press releases, the people expected something more than that,” Mr. Ramajayam observed.
In essence, the AIADMK was more or less intact without Mr. Dhinakaran’s influence. “Probably, political parties smelt this early and chose to stay away from the AMMK. They were sure that the AMMK won’t be able to repeat an R.K. Nagar-type victory,” he said.
Professor Ramu Manivannan, who chairs the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Madras, felt the AMMK did not think beyond money power. “The AMMK is an example of what money power can do in politics and what money power cannot do,” he said.
The grand alliance stitched by the AIADMK, even if it failed to win, managed to contain the growth of the AMMK. “The AMMK was more a party with people, who were dissatisfied with CM Palaniswami and Deputy CM Panneerselvam in the AIADMK. It did not grow beyond that,” Prof Manivannan said.
The magic behind the R.K. Nagar win was due to the “active disenchantment with the ruling dispensation” then but the AIADMK managed to bring in PMK and DMDK match the challenge the AMMK posed in northern and central districts, he added.