Spread the love

By Our Reporter

The way the UML handled ticket distribution for the March 5 election has made one thing clear: KP Sharma Oli is not in a forgiving mood. The scars from the party’s 11th General Convention are still fresh, and they are now showing up openly in who gets to contest and who gets shut out. Ticket distribution, which should have been a routine organisational exercise, has instead turned into a quiet settling of scores.

At the centre of it all is Oli’s firm control over the process. Leaders who challenged him during the convention, especially those aligned with Ishwar Pokhrel, have found themselves pushed aside. It did not matter how strong their base was, how many votes they pulled in internal elections, or how well placed they were to win in their constituencies. Once they crossed Oli, their chances narrowed sharply. However, Oli later relented to allow Pokhrel contest from Kathmandu-5, the constituency Pokhrel had lost in 2022 elections. After much discussion and pressure, he also allowed Thakur Gaire to contest from Palpa-2 after shifting his loyalist Bishnu Paudel to his original seat, Rupandehi-2.

The discontent erupted as soon as the Secretariat finalised candidates for 140 constituencies. District committees had sent recommendations, local units had argued their case, and grassroots workers had expected their voices to count. In many cases, they did not. Candidates with weak public presence and little local connection were picked over seasoned leaders. Even some from Oli’s own camp were dropped, showing that loyalty alone is not always enough if calculations change at the top.

Names like Surendra Pandey, Parshuram Meghi Gurung, Binda Pandey, Arun Nepal, Karna Thapa and Yogesh Bhattarai missing from the list sent a loud message through the party. Bhattarai’s written note of dissent was rare in a party where public disagreement is often discouraged. His complaint was simple: rules were bent, criteria ignored, and cadres demoralised. Others chose silence, but the frustration runs deep.

Keeping tickets for 25 constituencies on hold has added another layer of pressure. Officially, it is about further consultation. Unofficially, many see it as a tool to keep rival leaders uneasy and to retain room for last minute deals. Analysts believe these seats may also be used to protect senior figures, including Oli himself, in tough races. The uncertainty serves one purpose well: it keeps power firmly with the chair.

What makes this episode more striking is the contrast with the Nepali Congress. After the Gen Z revolt, the Congress was forced into a special convention that reshaped its leadership. In the UML, the revolt led to a convention, but the outcome strengthened the old guard instead of loosening its grip. Oli emerged more dominant, not more accommodating.

This approach carries risks. Ticket distribution based on personal loyalty rather than public appeal can hurt the party on polling day. UML has long depended on a loyal voter base, but that base is ageing and shrinking. Younger voters are harder to convince, and internal infighting only adds to the party’s rigid image. Nominating controversial figures and sidelining popular local leaders does not help.

There is also a moral question. When leaders who won internal votes and worked the ground are blocked, cadres start asking why they should stay invested. The Okhaldhunga district committee’s decision to stay out of the election is a warning sign.

For now, Oli has declared himself the prime ministerial candidate, kept key decisions in his hands, and shaped the ticket list to suit his strategy. The real test will come after March 5. If the results disappoint, the resentment bottled up today will return louder. And this time, it may not stay confined to closed door meetings.