UML’s move against dissenting leaders draws flak

The CPN-UML’s decision to expel senior leader Bhim Rawal and strip Binda Pandey and Usha Kiran Timsena of their responsibilities has once again exposed the fragile state of intra-party democracy in Nepal’s political parties. The three leaders were penalized for opposing the party’s controversial acceptance of a land donation from businessman Min Bahadur Gurung, who is under government scrutiny for tax evasion.

Rawal’s expulsion is the culmination of years of tension with party leadership, stemming from his candidacy against KP Sharma Oli for party chairperson post in 2021. Pandey and Timsena, regarded as intellectuals within the party, have consistently scrutinized party decisions through a critical lens. Defending the move, senior UML leaders argue that penalizing dissenters is necessary to maintain discipline and prevent anarchism. However, political scientists and the public are unconvinced, seeing it as a severe blow to the already fragile intra-party democracy.

As the UML chair, Oli has consolidated power to the extent that dissent within the party is almost nonexistent. Since his rise to leadership in 2015, he has strengthened his control, leaving no significant factions to challenge him. Leaders who once opposed him, such as Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhala Nath Khanal, have already left the party to form the CPN (Unified Socialist). Rawal’s candidacy against Oli in 2021 was a rare act of defiance.

In a Facebook post defending the party’s recent actions, General Secretary Shankar Pokharel shared a statement emphasizing party discipline. While party leaders frame their decisions as a matter of maintaining order, public discourse has shifted to the broader implications for intra-party democracy. The UML’s decision to accept Gurung’s land donation is particularly contentious. Despite a favorable Supreme Court verdict, some within the party believe that funds for party buildings should come from member contributions rather than external donations. Pandey has openly stated her opposition, criticizing the lack of internal consultation before the party’s decision to accept the donation.

The challenges facing the UML are not unique. Intra-party democracy in Nepal’s major political parties is notoriously weak. Most parties are dominated by a single leader who dictates the party’s direction and enforces strict adherence to decisions. Internal deliberations are rare, and dissenting voices are often punished as violations of party discipline. This autocratic culture stifles debate and innovation, ultimately harming the parties and the democratic process.

Nepali Congress (NC) leader Nain Singh Mahar emphasizes robust intra-party democracy as a prerequisite for a thriving national democracy. The suppression of dissent has historically led to splits within Nepal’s political parties. The UML’s split in 2021, when Nepal, Khanal and others formed a new party, is a prominent example. Similarly, the CPN (Maoist Center) has experienced multiple splits, while the NC itself has a history of intolerance toward dissenting voices, forcing many leaders to leave over the years.

The suppression of dissent within parties often leads to long-term consequences. In the case of the UML, the lack of dialogue and inclusivity has eroded trust among members and weakened the party’s internal cohesion. Political analysts argue that the leadership should prioritize fostering an environment where differing opinions are valued and debated rather than silenced. A healthy democracy within parties is essential not only for their survival but also for strengthening democratic norms in the country as a whole.

The broader implications of weak intra-party democracy extend beyond individual parties. When political organizations fail to uphold democratic principles internally, they are less likely to champion these values in governance. This creates a vicious cycle where authoritarian practices within parties translate into autocratic tendencies in national politics.

For Nepal’s democracy to thrive, analysts say political parties must evolve into institutions that encourage participation, debate and accountability. Without these reforms, the cycle of suppressing dissent and fragmenting political entities is likely to continue, undermining the country’s democratic aspirations.