Spread the love

By Our Reporter

The Nepali Congress is facing one of its most uncomfortable moments in recent memory. A clear majority of party members, around 54 percent, have formally asked for a special convention. The establishment side has refused, arguing that the window has closed and that a regular convention is already scheduled. This standoff has pushed the party into a zone where confusion, mistrust, and fear of a split now dominate internal discussions.

At the heart of the dispute lies process and timing. The party leadership approved a schedule for the 15th general convention after a long Central Working Committee meeting. The plan looked neat on paper, ward conventions from December 31, 2025 onward, leading to a full convention later. The problem was execution. Active membership renewal stalled, ward units were left unsure what to do, and no clear instruction followed. When the general secretaries suspended the schedule the next day, it exposed how shaky the entire plan was.

This is where the demand for a special convention gained strength. Party statute says that if 40 percent of delegates ask for it, the leadership must act. More than half have done so. Ignoring that demand sends a damaging message that rules apply only when convenient. For a party that claims democratic credentials, this is a serious credibility issue.

The establishment argues that holding any convention before the March 5, 2026 elections would weaken the party. That concern is not baseless. Internal contests eat time, money, and energy. Factions harden, wounds deepen, and rivals outside benefit. Many party workers fear that public infighting will cost votes at a moment when the Congress is already under pressure from new political forces.

Yet postponing everything also carries a price. The anger among younger leaders and delegates did not appear overnight. It grew from repeated delays, closed door decisions, and a sense that the same faces control the party without accountability. Saying “not now” once again may calm the leadership, but it risks pushing frustrated groups toward open defiance. That is how splits begin, not with loud declarations, but with quiet exits and parallel structures.

The Gen Z movement changed the political mood of the country. Voters are less patient with excuses and power games. Inside the Congress, younger leaders are reflecting that mood. Their demand is not only about dates and venues. It is about voice, fairness, and respect for rules. Treating this as a nuisance rather than a warning is risky.

The strongest argument lies somewhere in the middle. A full-scale convention battle before March 5, 2026 would hurt the party in elections. At the same time, flat refusal to honor a valid demand for a special convention undermines the party’s moral ground. The leadership must find a political solution, not a procedural escape. That could mean a time bound commitment, a written roadmap, and shared authority until elections pass. Empty assurances will not work anymore.

If the Congress splits, it will not be because members asked for a convention. It will be because the leadership failed to listen, failed to follow its own rules, and failed to adapt to a changed political mood. Saving the party now requires humility, compromise, and the courage to loosen control. Without that, fear of elections may soon turn into fear of irrelevance. Meanwhile, there are many supporting Gagan for a special convention at any cost. But several of these leaders have given up their stance once the establishment side upped its pressure and rejected such a convention.