An insurrection of sorts is brewing in the CPN-UML. KP Sharma Oli, the all-powerful party leader and two-time prime minister, is being called out for his poor leadership.
This week, speaking in a TV interview, Ghanashyam Bhushal, one of the party leaders, blamed Oli for the UML’s poor showing in the May 13 local elections. Bhushal not only told his interviewer that Oli must be held to account for the UML’s poor electoral performance. He also called on the party leader to step down on moral grounds.
This was probably the harshest criticism of the UML chief following the 2021 party-split. Oli’s fierce critics like Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhala Nath Khanal—both former prime ministers—have left the party and registered a new one.
Such is the power and popularity of Oli inside the UML that barring some pointed remarks by Bhim Rawal, another senior UML leader, Oli has enjoyed unprecedented sway among the rank and file.
Bhushal’s remarks against Oli haven’t gone unnoticed in the party. The UML’s Central Disciplinary Commission, led by Keshav Badal, has already recommended action against him. Now, it is for the party’s central committee to decide whether Bhushal should face the music for criticizing Oli.
Badal says Bhushal must be punished for trying to besmirch the party’s image.
“Every party member must respect the party’s ethics and discipline,” he says. UML’s Vice-chairman Ishwar Pokhrel describes the issue as “an internal matter” and not a subject of public discourse. “We will arrive at an appropriate decision after discussions in the party,” he says.
But the Bhushal episode has made one thing crystal-clear: the UML is struggling to maintain healthy intra-party democracy.
The UML disciplinary body’s recommended action against Bhushal has drawn mixed reactions from in and outside the party.
Some UML leaders say the party is clearly in need of an opposition voice to maintain healthy check and balance and to keep the leadership on the right track, particularly after the departure of senior leaders like Nepal and Khanal.
Oli maintains a strong grip on the party and speaking against him has repercussions. Even top leaders don’t dare criticize Oli these days.
As the UML is the only big party in Nepal not to have a strong in-party opposition to its top leadership, says a party leader requesting anonymity, Bhushal is trying to position himself as a strong and legitimate opposition voice.
“After Madhav Kumar Nepal’s exit, Bhim Rawal tried to occupy that space by challenging Oli for UML leadership at 10th general convention. He failed and perhaps Bhushal now believes it is his turn to stake claim as Oli’s main in-party ideological opponent,” says the leader.
Bhushal had also gone against the will of some senior leaders and vied for the post of the party’s vice-chair at the general convention.
Some UML leaders believe Bhushal is being treated unfairly and that taking action against him for criticizing Oli does not reflect well on the image of a democratic party like UML. But there are others who argue that although Bhushal’s attempts at democratizing his party are admirable, he does come across as an opportunist, given the nature of his past spats with Oli.
When Oli became prime minister for the second time in 2018, Bhushal was one of his most vehement critics in the UML. In order to placate Bhushal, Oli then offered him a position in his cabinet, which the latter accepted in a heartbeat.
That Bhushal, someone who railed against ideological and policy-level flaws of the then Oli government, accepted the ministerial berth cannot be forgotten, says the UML leader.
“And when the dispute inside the then Nepal Communist Party (NCP) was at its peak, it was Bhushal who provoked Madhav Kumar Nepal and Pushpa Kamal Dahal to revolt against Oli,” says the leader.
Journalist Sitaram Baral, who has closely followed Nepal’s left politics for two decades, says Bhushal is trying to send a message to Oli that his working style and leadership are not helping the party. “I believe Bhushal is in favor of a broad left alliance and he sees Oli as the main obstacle towards this goal,” he says.
But whatever Bhushal’s end-game, Baral believes he has raised an important question of democracy inside Nepali political parties.
Otherwise, dissent tends to be suppressed and attempts are even made to sabotage the political careers of dissenting leaders. This tendency, some political analysts say, is one of the main reasons for the repeated splits we see in Nepali political parties. The break-ups, first of the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) and then the UML, are cases in point.
At the same time, maintaining healthy intra-party discipline is also a big challenge for political parties.
Political analyst Lokraj Baral says Oli may have an authoritarian bent, but his critics like Bhushal and Rawal have also displayed opportunistic tendencies, making it difficult to trust them entirely.
“They instigated Madhav Kumar Nepal to fight Oli and when the party broke up, they chose to remain in the parent party. Such behavior is also bound to weaken intra-party democracy,” he says.
Instead of speaking with the media, Bhushal should have raised his objections against Oli from within the party, Baral adds.
“At the same time, Oli should learn to listen to the grievances of his party leaders,” he says. “It is amply clear that some UML leaders are displeased with Oli but afraid to speak up.”
