KATHMANDU, July 23: The CPN-UML, a tightly-run political outfit with a reputation for internal discipline, has found itself in deep crisis lately. Central to this crisis is the comeback of former President Bidya Devi Bhandari in active politics as a UML functionary. The friction within the party came to the surface after KP Sharma Oli tightened his hold on the party by planning to scrap internal term and age limits. He has done so obviously to prevent Bhandari, who renewed her UML membership, from taking leadership charge.
Besides, the party came under fire after two of its sitting ministers were accused of corruption. However, the crisis created by Bhandari’s reentry has dwarfed the other crisis, created by corruption-tainted ministers. Both events have been a detriment to the party’s image, as they posed a moral quandary to the UML, whose chair is currently leading the government through a coalition participated in by the largest party in the parliament, the Nepali Congress.
The reentry of the former head of state into active politics, which was decried by several, was not a sudden act but a long thought-out plan. Many say that her visit to China, her public appearances in UML programs in eastern districts, and increasing interaction with UML leaders of all hues and stripes already gave a hint that she was more than willing to rejoin party politics. Many claimed that her visit to China, where several senior Chinese leaders advised her to work towards bolstering the UML and uniting all communist outfits in the nation, paved the way for her return to the UML. She visited China, leading several UML leaders.
UML to hold district convention on January 7
After her return from China, she confirmed her reentry to the UML, which took Chair Oli and his party supporters by surprise, compelling him to turn defensive. He cast doubt on the former president's UML membership and shifted the blame against those who supported her within the party. Many in the party and outside it have raised their voices against the former president rejoining party politics, which goes contrary to the principle of republicanism. Chair Oli appears to have raised the same voice when he reportedly advised Bhandari not to enter party politics.
In an apparent effort to stop Bhandari from taking the UML helm, he went ahead to remove two-term and 70-year age limit provisions, which he once pushed forward. Once these provisions are firmly scrapped by the party’s statute convention to be held in September, the road will be clear for him to cling to his post indefinitely. While many of his stooges in the party will applaud this, several others will feel the heat and start feeling insecure.
However, in a bid to contain the internal conflict gripping the party, both Oli and Bhandari, once known for having a strong bond (many say that Bhandari was catapulted to the Shital Niwas due to Oli’s strong backing), held a one-on-one meeting and agreed to settle this issue amicably. It seems both sides are projecting calm, trying to give off the impression that things are under control. But UML functionaries like Ishwar Pokharel, Karna Thapa and some others like Gokul Baskota, who have demonstrated their backing of Bhandari, are taking the recent understanding between Oli and Bhandari with a pinch of salt. To deliver a blow to Pokhrel, the senior deputy chair of the party, Oli decided to do away with the senior deputy chair's post in the party. Despite this, the supporters of Bhandari appear happy with her return, hoping it could shift the power balance.
This situation indeed tells about how strong Oli’s grip over the party is and has alienated some senior leaders. Bhandari’s return has given some leaders a reason to rejoice. She has an aura that all sidelined UML leaders can rally around to challenge Oli’s monopoly and arbitrary rule. With Oli’s manipulative acts, Bhandari, who, as the President, supported Oli blindly, may not have an easy walk. His ambition to remain in charge has posed a difficulty for the Bhandari and her backers. In a recent Central Working Committee meeting, Oli warned all those who are quite vocal in support of Bhandari of disciplinary action. Given the strong grip and removal of age-limit and two-term restrictions, Oli is likely to continue as the party Chair even after the party’s 10th general convention in November this year.
The unfolding events—Bhandari’s visit to China and meeting with UML leaders, her return to the UML, Oli’s maneuverings to stop her from taking a leadership role, and the party functionaries divided into two factions, overtly and covertly—suggest that the party will have a difficult phase in maintaining tight discipline for some time. Bhandari’s return has indeed rejuvenated many party leaders who have been brushed aside by the Oli camp. Now, Oli’s hold in the party is being tested.
The Oli-Bhandari episode does suggest that the UML has lacked a leader who can rightly replace Oli at the party’s helm. The second-rung leader lacks the confidence to lead the party. Many say that when the leadership role is shifted to the shoulders of a leader like Shankar Pokhrel or Bishnu Paudel, there is enough possibility that the party might witness a new round of internal strife among pro-Oli leaders and leaders who remained sidelined during Oli’s tenure. Until the party finds a leader of Bhandari’s stature in its leadership role, it may continue to wobble from one patch-up to the next.