Whether it’s Vidya or KP, Consensus Will Prevail

Anand Prasad Pokharel
( Translated by uknepalpress reporter Shiva K Dhakal)

The CPN-UML’s second Statute Convention is set to take place in the third week of Bhadra. Before that, we will pass political, organizational, ideological, and theoretical documents. For this, a Politburo meeting will be held on Shrawan 2, followed by a Central Committee meeting on Shrawan 5. In these meetings, the statute amendment proposal will be presented by Vice-Chairman Bishnu Poudel, the political report by Chairman KP Sharma Oli, and the organizational report by General Secretary Shankar Pokharel. We will share our views and deliberate on these reports. Thus, discussions on the statute and ideology will only begin after the documents are made public.

The appropriate forum for such discussions is not the media. Some activists are trying to engage in public debates, which is not appropriate. Discussing and debating without the official documents is immature. Some activists argue that there should be no objection to leadership debates, but since we have not yet discussed policies, statutes, and principles, it is not suitable to talk about leadership at this stage. Leadership is determined based on principles and policies, and debates should be conducted accordingly. Therefore, it is premature to discuss who will rise to leadership now.

Chairman KP Sharma Oli, elected from the 10th National Congress, continues to lead the UML. No one has officially announced their candidacy for the chairmanship. In the absence of such announcements, debating “this leader” or “that leader” is not only immature but also risks creating division within the party.

Yes, Vidya Bhandari has expressed interest in returning to politics. But debating whether she should or should not join sends the wrong message. She has the constitutional and legal right to engage in politics. The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, political freedoms, and personal liberties, including the right to choose a party, work in a party, and hold leadership positions.

The discussion about Vidya Bhandari joining UML is redundant. It is natural for her to be involved in UML politics. Given her esteemed national and international stature, her decision to work within the UML and dedicate her remaining years to serving the country and the people should be viewed positively. If she strengthens and organizes the party, the UML should welcome her.

As for leadership discussions, no such debate has taken place yet. When the time comes, we will naturally form opinions based on rationale, necessity, and ideology. Premature discussions on leadership weaken the party’s internal unity, which we must not allow.

Some claim that internal democracy within UML has weakened and that there’s no procedural discussion. But that’s not true. UML has its own organizational structure: under the General Secretary is the Central Office, under the Chairman is the Secretariat, and there are bodies like the Standing Committee, Politburo, and Central Committee. Decisions are made systematically through these bodies. No major national or international issue has ever been implemented without being approved by one of these meetings. So how can UML be accused of lacking democracy?

For example, if the Organizational Department holds a workshop, its decisions are formalized through the Secretariat and circulated accordingly. Accusing UML of lacking democracy is baseless and only serves to create division within the party.

The two-year leadership term and the age limit of 70 years have also been topics of discussion. These provisions were passed during the first Statute Convention and later adjusted through the National Congress. How these issues will be addressed going forward should be discussed internally, not publicly.

No issue is off-limits for discussion within the party. If a subject requires discussion, it should be brought forward with courage. Decisions are then made based on the debates held. This is the core principle of a Communist Party and Leninist organization. Simply voicing an opinion does not violate procedure, nor does it warrant disciplinary action. Members should speak up honestly, engage in discussion, and accept the decisions made. There is no need for positioning or factionalism based on doubts or suspicions.

We still have ample time to conduct a scientifically grounded Statute Convention that unites the party and incorporates everyone’s sentiments. Some fear they might face the same fate as Bhim Rawal, Ghanashyam Bhusal, Binda Pandey, or Ushakiran if they speak up. But I say: anyone carrying such fears should not be in politics. One must dare to speak honestly, follow the system, and implement decisions in practice.

Before the Statute Convention, we should gather suggestions from party committees and, based on those, finalize the statute and then have leadership discussions. The claim that debate is prohibited is false. Once the National Congress debate begins, and the process moves forward, if a consensus leadership is not achieved and others show interest, members will naturally have the right to vote for their preferred candidate.

The current market chatter about a competition between Vidya Bhandari and KP Oli in the eleventh convention seems unlikely. In reality, whether it is Vidya or KP, leadership will be selected by consensus.

(Based on a conversation with CPN-UML Politburo member Pokharel)