Is Unified Socialist In A Mess?

The political parties generally acquire their vigour and dynamism from their internal democratic exercises considered vital for their legitimacy and moral fibre. The bottom-up approach enhances the inner-party democracy for it channelises the grassroots’ inputs and insights into the decision-making level. This systematically checks any autocratic penchant of leadership that is often blamed for centralising powers and undermining the voices of the functionaries on the ground. The annual conventions of the parties’ committees from centre down to the ward level recharge their organisations and circulate the fresh faces at different leadership rungs. 

However, if the delegates are denied their rights to pick the leaders of their choice and top leaders handpick their loyalists for designated positions, this will breed ground for resentments among the representatives, resulting in intense bickering and eventual division of the party. Similarly, there is also another facet of the internal democracy in which the leaders are chosen through voting. But sometime, those who fail to get elected, challenge the internal election process, blaming the leadership for their failure. 

Democratic culture

It is a democratic culture to concede the defeat and embrace the mandate of conventions organised as per the party’s statute. Refusal to recognise the electoral outcomes brings anarchy while undermining the legal and constitutional provisions adopted to guide the party’s organisational activities and legitimacy. This plunges the party into a state of dysfunction and inertia. These twin drawbacks arising from the nomination practice resorted to by top leadership and rebuttal of the poll outcome by cadres have plagued Nepali political parties time and again. This malaise has mainly infected the smaller parties that are always on the edge owing to political volatility. 

The CPN-Unified Socialist, a splitter of the CPN-UML, is now suffering from these troubles. The party adopted both methods – nomination and election - to decide the leadership but they proved to be unsuccessful, threatening its unity and existence. Its general convention, held on June 30-July 5 this year in Kathmandu, unanimously chose Madhav Kumar Nepal as its chairman, Jhalanath Khanal respected leader and Ghanshyam Bhusal general secretary. The convention elected 93 central committee members and mandated a panel comprising Nepal, Khanal and Bhusal to select the remaining of 299-member central committee as per the party’s statute. But it finalised 344 central committee members to satisfy disgruntled leaders of different camps. 

But the troika failed to select the office-bearers in consensus. Then the party decided to pick them through a voting. Those who failed to make it to the position of office-bearers, created uproar against the election process, claiming that top leaders promoted factionalism and conspired to defeat them. The convention, supposed to energise the party, instead engendered bitterness and despair among the cadres. Some disgruntled leaders submitted a memorandum to the leaders, demanding the annulment of the election of office-bearers and politburo but the leadership has snubbed their demand.

The party insiders state that if all the CC members were elected from the convention, it would not have reeled from current crisis. Another interesting part is that those who were close to chair Nepal or took benefit from him in the past, became vocal critics of his leadership after they failed to hold the post of the office-bearers. Some of them even called for joining the parent CPN-UML, claiming that their party could not justify the revolt and split from the UML. This sort of posture exposed their petty bourgeois mindset and a height of opportunism. 

What worries the Unified Socialist more is the possibility of introduction of the ordinance that allows the split of party by mustering the support of 20 per cent of its central members or lawmakers. It is reported that Unified Socialist dissidents, including its CC members and lawmakers had asked Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to bring the ordinance to facilitate the party division. However, this could not happen after the key ally of the government, Nepali Congress, declined to support the bid to unveil the ordinance with the purpose of splitting the Unified Socialist and other fringe forces.

It is heard on media grapevine that NC president Sher Bahadur Deuba had given consent to bring the ordinance but the anti-establishment side stood against it, citing that this would not only bring disrepute to the party but also weaken its position if the Unified Socialist rebel lawmakers joined the UML. The Unified Socialist leaders have heaved a sigh of relief after the government backed down from presenting the proposed ordinance in the parliament.  Nonetheless, the ordinance is still like a sword of Damocles that hangs over the head of Unified Socialist struggling to become a force to be reckoned with in the national politics.   

Internal dispute

In order to douse the raging internal dispute, the party has formed a seven-member taskforce that is expected to give the dissenters due responsibility in the would-be Standing Committee. Those who were office-bearers but lost election for same positions will be included in the Standing Committee. Similarly, those who were Standing Committee members and are elected to the politburo now, are also to be incorporated in it. It is also set to enforce one person one post policy so that all disgruntled leaders are allotted significant responsibility. This provision will end dual responsibility of leaders except for the lawmakers. 

Can the new arrangements resolve the ongoing tension within the Unified Socialist? Is it a right way to create a new structure to end the potential break-up of the party?  It is interesting that the communist leaders have developed their habit of clinging to posts at all cost. They feel like a fish out of water if they do not hold a party position. These are merely temporary measures aimed at averting the party’s possible split. They might not work in the future. If its cadres and leaders lack a clear idea as to why they formed the new party more than three years ago, it will continue to be engulfed by uncertainty and confusion. 

(The author is Deputy Executive Editor of this daily.)