Asia/Kathmandu

The ruling party shows unification concludes, but leaders look at more issues

Probably a year after the declaration of a merger between two leftist powers to form the country’s main communist party, leaders on Monday declared official summary of the unification process.

At a show organized in the Capital to introduce a closure of the unification process, Co-chairmen KP Sharma Oli and also Pushpa Kamal Dahal explained the development as a major milestone in Nepal’s communist activity. 

The programme was planned for April 22, to overlap with the established event of the communist party in Nepal 70 years back.

The two parties, which followed totally different ideologies, made an alliance in October 2017, months before the historic common election under the constitution promulgated in 2015.

After capturing the elections, the unified Nepal Communist Party ( NCP ) has got the mandate to direct for a full five-year term, something that has not happened in higher than two-and-a-half decades.

The delayed unification process, nevertheless, had become an important cause for concern.

Leaders termed Monday’s declaration an important development, but they also were quick to add there are more issues ahead.

Concerns are already increasing among leaders over the way two leaders are managing the party, as they say, choices are being made without following a suitable system.

A lot of leaders–from each the erstwhile CPN-UML and the CPN ( Maoist Centre )–have long declared the unity in 2018 was not a result of conviction but rather a marriage of flexibility.

Amid all of this, the two events, especially Oli’s UML, received a factional feud in legacy, that was an important stumbling block to the conclusion of the party merger.

The major bone of contention was exchanging of leadership placements in the districts, specifically between the factions led by Oli and Madhav Kumar Nepal.

Following a contract on the district leadership on Sunday, leaders chose to announce the unification over on Monday.

Yet leaders say there are many challenges ahead, as they question the implementation of the choice on the district committees, whose leadership will play an important role in power-sharing, along with a portfolio of leaders in the districts.

“Today’s declaration can be seen as positive growth,” declared Lekhnath Neupane, a central committee member. “But there is doubt this will generate ground for leadership improvement.”

Party leaders possess agreed to show chairpersons and also secretaries in the unified district committees between people who chaired the district committees in the different parties. This has produced problem in many districts, as juniors have become chairperson whilst seniors–and some central members–have become secretaries.

“I have already informed the leadership to correct the final decision,” said Himal Sharma, a central committee member that has been selected the secretary of the Kathmandu district committee. He right now has to work under Krishna Rai, chairman of the Kathmandu district committee, but he is a ‘junior’ central member in the party, based on Sharma.

Rai was the Kathmandu district chairman of the past UML while Sharma headed the district committee of the Maoist party before the two parties chose to merge 11 months ago.

A minimum of half a dozen central members from the erstwhile Maoist party is actually what they call “demoted” to district secretaries. Leaders declared in some districts, provincial committee people have become district chairpersons whilst central members have been made secretaries.

“Anyone can think about the situation in districts where this kind of a situation has arisen,” declared Mani Thapa, a Standing Committee member. “How can they even hold on to meetings?”

Certain leaders such as Standing Committee member Ghanashyam Bhusal boycotted the unification declaration on Monday, claiming that the party did not carry out the due process to endorse primary decisions, including choice of leadership in the district committees. Bhusal, that is considered an ideologue in the party, has long objected to the actions of the two chairmen, arguing that their greed for power–not ideology–had brought them together. 

share on

You May Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *