Spread the love

By Our Reporter

Internal rivalry is becoming increasingly prevalent among Nepal’s main political parties. Their most senior leaders’ authoritarianism is the cause behind such rivalry. The Congress, UML, Maoists, and RPP chairs are all increasing their tight hold, suppressing rival voices, and sidelining opponents. If this trend continues, splits will almost certainly occur in these parties.

In the Nepali Congress, Sher Bahadur Deuba has been facing stiff challenges from Shekhar Koirala’s group, which includes vibrant young leaders such as Gagan Thapa and Bishwa Prakash Sharma, among others. As the Deuba-led establishment has pushed aside his rivals, the Shekhar faction is demanding a fair share of the party’s decision-making. Their current conflict with Deuba’s group will intensify in the upcoming Central Working Committee elections. Some members of the Shekhar group are also aiming to depose Deuba as party head of the parliament. However, it appears that Deuba is making his own calculations behind the scenes. Most people expect him to choose a loyalist to keep his influence after his stint as party president ends. 

Regarding the UML, Party Chairman KP Sharma Oli maintains tight control over the party but has isolated many members by his ways. Dissent is punished, and majorities have members who have opted for silence. The temporary return of ex-President Bidya Devi Bhandari to intra-party politics, embracing marginalized leaders like Karna Bahadur Thapa and Ishwar Pokharel, challenged Oli’s grip. However, Oli quickly sabotaged her support base by suspending her membership and removing age and term limits. 

The CPN (Unified Socialist), which arose from a split UML party, appears to be repeating the very mistakes. Chair Madhav Kumar Nepal, who was formerly a vociferous critic of Oli’s dictatorial tendencies, is now accused of the same. His frank criticism of the party’s number one leader, Jhala Nath Khanal, drew strong criticism. Khanal called the statements indecent, but others in the party saw them as evidence that free expression is no longer appreciated. More fissures appeared when Ram Kumari Jhakri branded Nepal, particularly after his name surfaced during the Patanjali land controversy.

The Maoist Center, led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, has used the same approach. The party, which was once a radical force, has now fallen apart. Senior politician Janardan Sharma has openly defied Dahal’s leadership, criticizing how the party is handled. Instead of speaking, Dahal issued veiled threats. He may act against Sharma, which will frustrate all those who dislike Dahal’s long hold in the party. Their fight has overflowed into the public sphere, reminding people of previous ideological divides. Commanders including Mohan Baidhya, Biplov, and CP Gajurel had previously quit, accusing Dahal of tyranny.

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) has not been an exception. Chairman Rajendra Lingden’s decision to marginalize leaders such as Sagun Sunder Lawati and Dhawal Shumsher Rana and Nawa Raj Subedi sparked outrage and increased factional rivalry. Some have even gone as far as filing complaints with the Election Commission, an extraordinary measure that demonstrates the severity of the internal collapse. The fissures in a party that had previously enjoyed stability are obvious.

Even the small Nagarik Unmukti Party has succumbed to the same path of centralization. Ranjita Shrestha, the party’s chair, was forced out after being accused of turning the party into a personal fiefdom and suspected of involvement in a land scam. Her dismissal, supported by her husband and father-in-law, threw the party into disarray. What began as a stated new alternative now appears splintered and rudderless.

All of these parties have their top leadership who have taken strong control over parties without caring for spaces for rivals within the party. They punish dissent and reward loyalty. Critical decisions are taken in closed circles, away from central committees and general memberships. If Nepal’s political parties want to remain united, they must first change themselves. Encouraging collective dialogues and listening to and addressing the dissenting voices are necessary, while taking collective decisions for the party’s long-term health is even more essential to build trust among all members and workers.