CHENNAI: The AIADMK's disappointing performance in the 2026 Assembly election has triggered a fresh round of introspection within the party, with a section of leaders and cadres attributing the setback to what they describe as an increasingly centralised style of functioning under general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami.
The party, which won 47 seats in the Assembly and failed to secure the status of principal opposition, is facing growing unease about its future course, as functionaries debate the reasons for the electoral reversal and the subsequent drift of cadres and leaders towards the TVK.
Several party leaders, including former ministers and district secretaries, speaking on condition of anonymity, contend that AIADMK's recent troubles stem from a lack of an inclusive approach in decision-making. According to them, opinions expressed by senior leaders are often not accommodated, with key political decisions being driven largely by the leadership's own assessment.
Even though the TVK alliance did not materialise, the cadre wanted to retain DMDK and Puthiya Tamilagam. A failure on that front led to a narrower coalition than many functionaries had expected.
AIADMK's recent troubles stem from Edappadi's lack of an inclusive approach in decision-making. Opinions expressed by senior leaders are often not accommodated. Key political decisions are largely based on the general secretary's own assessmentSenior AIADMK leader
Another issue that continues to be debated within the party is the leadership's reluctance to facilitate the return of former AIADMK leaders, including VK Sasikala and O. Panneerselvam. Several cadres believed that a broader reconciliation before the election could have helped consolidate the party's traditional support base, particularly in the southern districts.
While Palaniswami rejected such suggestions, arguing for organisational discipline and clarity in leadership, some functionaries now view the decision as a missed opportunity to project unity ahead of a crucial election.
The post-election political developments have also contributed to unease within the party. Discussions reportedly held between AIADMK and DMK leaders on government formation after the fractured verdict became a subject of debate among cadres. For many grassroots workers, the prospect of cooperation with the DMK, long regarded as AIADMK's principal political rival, was difficult to reconcile with the party's political identity.
Senior leaders are said to have subsequently favoured exploring a post-poll understanding with TVK. However, the proposal was not pursued, further fuelling dissatisfaction among some sections of the organisation.
Political commentator Tharasu Shyam argues that Palaniswami faces a challenge different from that encountered by his predecessors. Unlike MG Ramachandran and Jayalalithaa, whose authority within the party remained largely unquestioned, the current leadership operates alongside several senior leaders with comparable political experience and organisational standing.
"The expectation among many leaders is for a more consultative style of functioning, particularly when electoral strategies do not yield the desired results," he said.
Journalist Priyan Srinivasan believes the cumulative effect of repeated electoral defeats has intensified frustration among cadres. According to him, many party workers expected a detailed review of the election outcome and wider consultations within the organisation after the 2026 setback.
He notes that the AIADMK is navigating unfamiliar political terrain. Having remained out of power for a second consecutive term, the party is confronting challenges that it has rarely faced in its history. In such circumstances, he argues, organisational cohesion becomes critical.