UML must learn to respect dissenting voices

The nation’s main communist party, the CPN-UML, is now dealing with internal problems. Following the expulsion of senior leader Bhim Rawal and the suspension of two female leaders, Binda Pandey and Ushakiran Timalsena, carried out under the watch of party chair KP Sharma Oli, an alarming trend of intolerance towards dissenting voices emerged, implying that the party lacks democratic culture. Rawal was removed after years of criticizing Oli, which prompted him to run for chairman of the party at the 10th convention in Chitwan. Pandey and Timalsena were suspended for voicing concerns about the party and its leadership receiving land contributions for party offices from a tainted businessman accused of tax evasion and the Lalitaniwas land scam.

A week after his dismissal, Rawal established his new patriotic but non-communist party, accusing Oli of turning the UML into a personal domain in which fealty to him is essential for life. This tendency of purging or marginalizing opponents inside the UML is not new, but it has become more prominent under Oli’s term. Notable senior officials have left the UML due to internal disagreements. Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhalanath Khanal, both former prime ministers, quit the party to create the CPN (Unified Socialist) after years of disagreement with Oli’s leadership. Similarly, senior leader Bam Dev Gautam has removed himself from the party, claiming that it has no space for leaders like him since he, too, is a critic of Oli. These departures indicate a culture of intolerance.

Political experts claim that under Oli’s leadership, the UML has become a party controlled and dominated by the Oli supporters. Leaders such as Shankar Pokhrel, Ishwar Pokhrel, Bishnu Rimal, and Gokul Baskota are often seen attacking individuals who criticize Oli. Meanwhile, personalities like Pradip Gyawali, Yogesh Bhattarai, Yuv Raj Gyawali, and others who have demonstrated a hatred for following Oli’s lead, have been marginalized. Open discussion on party leadership choices has been restricted, increasing concerns among those who hold grudges against Oli and his staunch supporters. Following Rawal’s expulsion and the suspension of others, many UML leaders remained silent, highlighting the party’s underlying fear.

The infighting within the UML is not unique. The CPN (Maoist Center) faces a similarfaces a similar problem: almost no one can speak out against party head Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s policies or actions. Inside the Maoist party, Dahal has faced claims of marginalizing dissidents while consolidating his control as the party chair.

Former Maoist leaders Baburam Bhattarai, Mohan Baidhya Kiran, Biplav, Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal, and Top Bahadur Rayamajhi are among the leaders who left the party after falling out with Dahal.

The examples described above show Nepal’s socialist parties’ hypocrisy. Despite their dictatorial character, these parties often claim to be the advocates of democracy. The UML, for example, has often declared its support for democratic ideals in manifestos and public statements. However, the behaviors of its leaders reveal a different tale.

Rawal’s removal, together with the suppression of other dissident voices, points to this inconsistency. As Rawal pointed out in his harsh critique, Oli’s leadership has reduced the UML to a “shadow of its former self,” violating the very principles on which it was founded. The same may be argued for other communist parties, particularly the Dahal-led Maoist Centre, that have disliked opposition in parties, though they have claimed that they followed democratic norms in the nation’s polity.

Unlike the communist parties, the Nepali Congress (NC) has taken a more democratic approach to controlling internal dissent. While the NC is not as ideal as many of its staunch supporters believe, it has tolerated major disagreement inside the party without resorting to expulsions or suspensions. NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba, General Secretary Gagan Thapa, and senior leader Shekhar Koirala often disagree on key matters pertaining to the party, politics, and the nation, yet the party has managed to retain a sense of tolerance of dissenting voices.

The contrast between the NC and the leftist parties underscores the need for introspection within Nepal's communist factions. To maintain credibility and cohesion, parties like the UML and Maoist Centre must cultivate a democratic culture that values dissent as an essential component of organizational health. Leaders must recognize that open debate is an opportunity to address flaws, not a threat to authority.

If the UML continues its authoritarian trajectory under Oli, it risks further fragmentation, as seen with previous high-profile defections. Similarly, the Maoist Centre must learn from these lessons and prioritize inclusivity and transparency. Only by fostering democratic values within their structures can Nepal’s political parties claim legitimacy as proponents of democracy on the national stage.