Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari has formally returned to active politics, rejoining her old party, CPN-UML. After 10 years of party politics and seven years as Nepal’s ceremonial head of state, her comeback naturally raises questions: What role will she now play? Will her political approach evolve, or will she repeat her old style? While debates continue, her return deserves a simple acknowledgment: Welcome back to CPN-UML politics, Mrs Bhandari.
Legally and constitutionally, her return poses no barrier. Though some argue that a former ceremonial head of state should avoid re-entering active party politics, this is a moral debate, not a legal one. In today’s realist political environment, morality and principle seldom define political choices. Ultimately, the decision is hers, based on her confidence that she can still serve the nation.
This article, however, centers on the leadership of CPN-UML itself, especially KP Sharma Oli’s continued role. Is this the right moment to challenge Oli’s leadership? The answer is clear: No.
Still relevant and strong
As both Prime Minister and president of CPN-UML, KP Sharma Oli continues to lead effectively, directing internal and external challenges. Leadership must always be judged relatively. In comparison to other leaders, Oli remains Nepal’s most competent prime minister in recent times. His past tenure lists achievements crucial to national development and foreign policy.
Oli’s leadership is defined by rationality and conviction. He does not bend to populist trends or social media pressures. His decisions are grounded in logic, reason and what he perceives as the national interest. While populism tempts many leaders, Oli has largely resisted that path.
Importantly, he has defended Nepal’s national interests consistently, whether dealing with territorial disputes or resisting external influence. His governance style prioritizes sovereignty and independence. Even as foreign powers and domestic rivals target him, Oli stands firm. Weakening his leadership now would not only fragment the party but also undermine Nepal’s assertiveness on the global stage.
At a time when divisive forces seek to destabilize both the government and the party, CPN-UML leaders and cadres must stand united. Criticizing Oli for the sake of internal power struggles will harm the party more than it benefits anyone individually.
Strengthen the party
The Statute Convention of CPN-UML, scheduled for September 5-7 in Godavari, comes at a critical time. According to party rules, the General Congress must convene within a year of this convention. Therefore, this is not the time for leadership contests. Instead, the party’s focus should remain on strengthening internal structures, refining policies and fostering discipline.
Party politics is not about personal ambitions; it is about collective organization. The stronger CPN-UML becomes, the more its members benefit politically. Internal conflicts only weaken the party. This is evident in the example of Madhav Kumar Nepal. His breakaway Unified Socialist Party now faces marginalization and existential challenges. His past defiance against Oli earned short-term attention, but long-term irrelevance.
The priority for CPN-UML members should be clear: focus on making the party a decisive force in national politics. Strengthening the party as an institution will naturally open leadership opportunities for capable individuals over time.
Leadership pipeline
While Oli remains the party’s central figure today, the question of succession is valid. Fortunately, CPN-UML has no shortage of future leaders. Figures like Shankar Pokhrel, Bishnu Poudel, Pradeep Gyawali, PS Gurung and Yogesh Bhattarai represent the next generation of leadership. Each brings unique strengths and perspectives, ready to lead when the time comes.
However, succession planning must be strategic, not opportunistic. Oli might serve one more term, using that time to mentor and prepare younger leaders. If Bidya Devi Bhandari’s return strengthens the party, it should be seen as a unifying development, not the beginning of a rivalry. Oli and Bhandari are unlikely to compete against each other for leadership positions; rather, they could jointly support second- and third-generation leaders when conditions demand.
Leadership transitions should emerge from consensus and institutional processes, not factional contests.
In the current context, targeting Oli weakens both the party and Nepal’s political stability. Undermining him serves only adversarial interests, both domestic and foreign. Constructive criticism within the party is essential, but it should be grounded in facts, strategy and long-term goals.
Ultimately, while Oli will not lead forever, it is neither the right time nor the right approach to force leadership change rashly. His rational, nationally focused leadership remains essential in steering both the party and the government.
In conclusion, the future will depend on how wisely the party cultivates its emerging leadership. The CPN-UML’s immediate task is clear: consolidate around its current leadership, strengthen party structures and prepare a new generation of leaders through unity and discipline—not internal fragmentation.
Criticizing Oli without strategic reason weakens the party and empowers adversaries. As long as Oli prioritizes national interests and rational governance, he deserves the party’s support—not unnecessary challenges.
For now, the question is not who will replace Oli, but how the party can become stronger under his leadership, ensuring a smooth and wise transition when the time is truly right.
