Spread the love

By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel

The late Bisheshwar Prasad Koirala (BP Koirala) once envisioned a future where the Nepali Congress would be viewed as a party to reckon with. The founder of the NC, BP Koirala, was successful to a large extent, as the NC ruled the country for several years as a representative of democracy. But sadly, more than seven decades later, the party is reeling under several internal challenges and feuds. In plain words, the party is beset by internal feuds, factional and interest groups, and subgroups, raising questions over its long-standing historical legacy.

Established on April 5, 1950, with the objective to end the autocratic regime and bring democracy to Nepal, the NC is the largest political party in Nepal. The party was formed under the leadership of Koirala—a revolutionary political leader and writer. In the initial years after its establishment, the party, endowed with a pro-democratic leader, remained a powerful force defending and fostering democracy. To say, the Nepali Congress did not just witness the making of modern Nepal; it scripted a large part of it. But fast forward to the present: the party that calls itself a representative of democracy is functioning in an undemocratic manner.

In the recent past, the grand old party has plunged into a cycle of crises after the demand for change in leadership gained momentum. Party supporters and insiders argue that the biggest problem within the party is growing autocratic tendencies among the senior leaders. According to them, the senior leaders are not in the mood to hand over power to younger generations, signaling autocratic tendencies. These tendencies have resulted in significant problems, including entrenched corruption, persistent factionalism, a disconnect with the youth electorate, and a lack of clear ideological direction.

While the Nepali political landscape has not shifted that much, parties such as the Rashtriya Swatantra Party, a very new entrant in the Nepalese political spectrum, are challenging the Nepali Congress thanks to their growing craze among the masses, especially youth. This is just one example. There are several others. Senior leader Shekhar Koirala publicly said that unless the Nepali Congress revamps its structure and addresses internal feuds, the party is likely to experience a worse result in the general election scheduled for March 5, 2006. His observation cannot be ruled out altogether.

Any political party is mandated to conduct a general convention within the given time. This makes the party more democratic, accountable, and transparent. But sadly, this has not been the case in the Nepali Congress in the recent past. The grand old party has plunged into a cycle of crises and ambiguity over holding its general convention, while other parties have stepped up their election preparations.

Media reports say that the party is yet to reach a decision on the party convention. Earlier, the party had planned to hold the general convention from January 10 to 12, 2026. But due to time constraints and disputes, the timetable to hold the lower-level convention has been affected. In October last year, as many as 54 per cent of elected representatives of the party submitted a memorandum demanding a special convention. The proposal was put on hold after the party decided to conduct a general convention. However, given the prevailing bickering among party leaders, a special convention in the near future seems a far-fetched dream.

The demand for special conventions is insignificant at present. One should not view it as a key challenge posing the party. What plagues the party is the reluctance on the part of senior leaders to hand over leadership to younger leaders. Over the years, there has been a growing demand for change in party leadership and structure—something that is very relevant and justifiable. But sadly, the demands for leadership change have been given short shrift by the leaders in power—something that tarnishes the image of the party. Four-time prime minister Sher Bahadur has been serving as the chair of the party for a long time. He seems adamant about handing over the reins.

Rampant internal factionalism, weak institutionalization, and leadership and generational gaps are the key challenges on display. Likewise, nepotism, favoritism, and failure to deliver on governance are other challenges staring down the Nepali Congress. If these challenges are not dealt with using appropriate measures, the party that once dominated Nepalese politics could face a humiliating defeat in the upcoming general election.

However, all is not lost yet. The party is still blessed with competent and result-oriented leaders who are best known for their vision and agenda. If the party can embrace change and address a few internal bickerings, it can make a strong comeback, silencing its critics.

To start with, the Nepali Congress must address the different dimensions of party building. The first dimension is to build a strong institutional network: an efficient central office run by professional staff, a larger membership base, and a decentralized network of party branches.

Likewise, party workers have identified the problems and the required reforms. Several assessments have outlined weak leadership, wrong electoral strategy, internal conflict, and flaws in electoral seat distribution as the key problems leading to poor performance in elections. In addition, the findings have also identified failure to attract the younger generation and the inability to deal with questions of identity and nationalism as key reasons for the Nepali Congress’s decline. One should not be taken aback, as all these problems are linked with leadership and the decision-making process.

It is also time for introspection, strategic restructuring, and, most importantly, internal unity among top leaders like Sher Bahadur Deuba, Dr Shekhar Koirala, and Gagan Thapa. These three individuals have been at each other’s throats over power sharing. Their indifference has impacted the party immensely. Without this unity, the party risks being engulfed by populism, polarization, and institutional collapse. At the same time, the loss of electoral ground and support base at the local level is a real possibility unless the party presents an organized and visionary alternative.