Surprising Sunday

By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel

Over the years, many things have changed in the country, but many have not. One thing that has not changed is the mentality of our politicians. They still tend to change their positions for personal gain. Their only intention is to remain in power, no matter the cost. Consider the events of last Sunday (November 2). The Maoist Centre and Unified Socialist, along with seven other little-known communist factions, agreed to merge into a single party in the wake of the Gen Z movement that toppled the UML-led government and aimed to revive Nepal’s waning communist influence.

The original Communist Party of Nepal was founded in 1949 with the objective of emancipating people from what it considered injustice and oppression. However, it quickly splintered into multiple factions during the 1960s and 1970s over differing views on the monarchy and the path to socialism—for example, the Marxist-Leninist. In 1991, the Marxist and Marxist-Leninist merged to form the Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML), a key force advocating People’s Multi-Party Democracy. A few years later, the Unity Centre—a more radical faction led by Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai—launched a decade-long people’s war. The conflict killed over 17,000 people and ended with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord in 2006.

Fast forward to 2018, when the UML and Maoist Centre merged to form a single, powerful party—the Nepal Communist Party (NCP). But as the old saying goes, “Two swords cannot share one sheath,” which proved true for the two communist parties, led by egoistic and arrogant leaders. Intense power struggles, primarily between KP Sharma Oli and Prachanda/Madhav Kumar Nepal, led to internal conflicts and the eventual dissolution of the NCP by the Supreme Court in 2021. The court ruling voided the merger and revived the UML and Maoist Centre as separate entities. Following the dissolution, voices emerged claiming that Nepalese communists could never remain intact for long.

Four years later, the Maoist Centre and Unified Socialist, along with seven other minor communist factions, agreed to merge into a single party. The announcement and subsequent merger surprised everyone. Now, questions are being raised about the new party’s effectiveness and influence. Let us not immediately criticize every member or doubt the caliber and confidence of each individual.

The newly formed party, which is yet to be named, aspires to become a major communist force in the country. It also aims to marginalize its archrival—the UML. However, it lacks the wherewithal to achieve these objectives. For instance, it does not yet have grassroots support and appears to lack a concrete agenda to address the grievances of the people.

Additionally, the new party faced a major setback when some key members refused to join the unification process. From the Maoist Centre, Janardhan Sharma, and from the Unified Socialist, senior leader Jhalanath Khanal, along with secretary Ghanshyam Bhusal, have stated that they will not be part of the merger. Analysts argue that this raises legitimate doubts about the effectiveness and influence of the new party.

Disagreements over the party’s name have also surfaced. Unified Socialist leaders propose naming it the Nepal Communist Party (Socialist), while cadres of the Maoist Centre fear that the merger might undermine the legacy and ideology established during the decade-long armed insurgency.

Ever since communists became a political force in Nepal, they have frequently merged and split due to differing views, power-sharing disputes, and internal struggles. Not long ago, Baburam Bhattarai abandoned communism, claiming it had lost relevance in the changed political context. Observers note that another underlying reason for Bhattarai’s departure and the formation of his new party, Naya Shakti, was personal and ideological dissatisfaction. He is just one example; there are several others.

Communists in Nepal have long been accused of opportunism. They are criticized for inaction and hollow rhetoric, often shifting positions and passing the blame. This tendency has been a defining feature of their politics.

It is important to understand that political strength does not come from merely counting leaders. So-called communists need to rise above partisan interests if they truly aspire to form a party that can command respect. In the changed political context, only a party capable of addressing the grievances raised during the Gen Z movement, as well as those of ordinary people, can gain real political momentum.

It is high time for the refinement and reformation of communist parties. Currently, they appear more focused on leadership management and election strategies than on substantive issues. If they fail to recognize the public demand for change and remain trapped in political labyrinths, the merger will be nothing more than new wine in old bottles.

Sunday’s merger was indeed a surprise for everyone. The key question now is whether the alliance of communist parties can remain intact for years to come. Will they set aside their ego and personal interests for the broader good of the party and the nation? These are genuine and legitimate questions that all Nepalis—not just communists—should ask. Based on past experience, the answer is likely no. However, we hope that this time, the communists have learned from their past mistakes, setbacks, and failures, and that they will act in the true spirit of communism and silence their critics.