Spread the love
Pdfn] cWoIf s]kL zdf{ cf]nL d+unaf/ ltgs’g] l:yt /f]on Aof+Sj]6df cfof]lht kqsf/ ;Dd]ngdf Pd;L;L k|sf/0f nufot d’n’sdf ljsl;t kl/l:ytLsf af/] kf6L{sf] wf/0ff ;fj{hlgs ub}{ . tl:a/ c+ub 9sfn . sflGtk’/

By Our Reporter

The CPN-UML is currently navigating one of its most intense internal battles in recent years, with the spotlight on the party’s general convention scheduled for December 13-15 in Kathmandu. What was supposed to be a routine gathering to set the party’s direction has turned into a high-stakes showdown over leadership, representation, and influence. The tension reflects broader challenges in Nepalese politics, where ambition and factionalism often collide with the need for institutional stability.

At the heart of the struggle is K.P. Sharma Oli, the party chair, whose dominance is being openly challenged by Ishwar Pokhrel. Pokhrel’s decision to contest for the top position signals that discontent within the party is no longer quiet or contained. It’s a sign that UML is at a crossroads: either it can reaffirm unity under a shared vision or risk deepening internal fractures. The recent disputes over who gets to represent various districts and constituencies at the convention have only fueled tensions. Leaders from both sides are pushing their loyalists, with accusations of favoritism and procedural irregularities becoming commonplace. This battle over delegate selection is not just about numbers; it’s about controlling the narrative and shaping the party’s future direction.

Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s faction has also become part of the equation. Once aligned closely with Oli, her camp is now under pressure, highlighting emerging fault lines. Leaders like Gokul Baskota and Yogesh Bhattarai, who were previously staunch supporters of Oli, are openly questioning his leadership. Others, like Bhim Rawal and Bamdev Gautam, have left the party entirely and joined new political formations, further demonstrating how internal dissatisfaction can lead to realignments beyond the UML. Adding to the mix, former Maoist leaders such as Ram Bahadur Thapa “Badal” and Top Bahadur Rayamajhi have joined the party, bringing fresh perspectives but also new controversies that risk complicating the leadership struggle.

The deeper issue is structural. Leadership change in Nepalese parties is rarely seen as a routine transition; it is viewed as a threat to existing power. This encourages factionalism and opportunistic maneuvering, turning what should be democratic debates into personality-driven clashes. UML is not immune. Years of centralized control, combined with a lack of transparent internal processes, have made the party vulnerable to disputes whenever leadership decisions are contested.

The convention, therefore, is more than a procedural exercise—it’s a test of UML’s ability to balance competing ambitions while maintaining unity. To navigate this successfully, the party will need inclusive leadership, clear processes for representation, and a culture that prioritizes debate and consensus over personality dominance. How UML manages this moment will not only determine its internal cohesion but also send a broader signal about the resilience and maturity of Nepal’s party politics.

In short, the upcoming convention is a defining moment for UML. The party faces a choice: it can either emerge stronger and more organized or allow internal rivalries to weaken its position in national politics. The stakes are high, and every move in Kathmandu over those three days will be closely watched by political observers across the country.