Chronic Cronyism Ruins Parties
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
It appears as though Nepal’s political parties are more like the gang of cronies than the political organizations. Some influential leaders are trying to turn the parties into their family business rather than political entity. This is not an isolated phenomenon of any particular party or leader but a general tendency in Nepal.
There are scores of political parties in existence in Nepal. In the Constituent Assembly held last year, 49 political parties registered in the Election Commission and contested the polls. Of them, only 25 political parties have their presence in the Constituent Assembly. If we look at their internal politics and activities, most of them are suffering from factionalism and power rivalry.
The bigger the party is the bitterer is the bickering in the leadership and internal life of the organization. Now look at the power struggle and factional fighting in these parties. Let us first analyze the UCPN-Maoist because it is the largest political party in the Constituent Assembly.
To look on the surface, the party is united and most disciplined. Generally, communist parties are considered to have strong discipline. But leadership cult and factionalism is more in the communist parties than other parties. Different groups exist in the communist party. Each group tries to give ideological colour to their factional fighting. As a result, the power struggle grows so intensely that different groups find it difficult to remain as a one entity. They then split and form different parties. If we look Nepal’s communist parties, there are more than a dozen groups claiming to be a genuine communist party and true representatives of the oppressed, downtrodden and working class people.
The Communist Party of Nepal was formed in 1949. Soon after its formation chasm appeared in the party and the process of split began. The Maoist party came into existence in the process of split and reorganization of the communist party. This party is not only the largest communist party in Nepal but also the biggest political force of Nepal at present. This fact was established after the Constituent Assembly election held last year in which the Maoists won clear-cut majority in the first-past- the post system of election. The Maoists were short of majority in the Constituent Assembly because of the proportionate electoral system. Had there not been proportionate election, the Maoists would have been in comfortable majority in the Constituent Assembly.
Factional fighting is fierce in the Maoist party. Right from the beginning, two distinct groups are visible in it. One was led by Prachanda and the other by Dr Baburam Bhattarai. The Prachanda-led group was strong whereas Baburam’s faction was in minority in the past. But the equation in the party changed after the Maoists signed the Comprehensive Peace Treaty and joined the peaceful politics. The new situation brought Prachanda and Baburam closer whereas Mohan Vaidya led the disgruntled group. Apart from Prachanda-Bauram group and Vaidya-led group, Ram Bahadur Thapa ‘Badal” has his own small group known as ‘middle-path’ faction. The Prachanda and Vaidya groups have their own approach which came to the fore officially in the recently held central committee meeting. In central committee meeting, the Vaidya group emerged so strong and forceful that Prachanda had to make some compromises and agreed to change the policies with due accommodation of the views expressed by the majority members. In the meeting, majority of the central committee members openly accused the leadership of deviating from revolutionary and proletariat path. Under pressure from the central committee members, the leadership agreed to form a panel to probe property and other activities of the Maoist leaders. This decision has been taken as a victory of Vaidya group on ideological ground.
The cronyism in the other mainstream communist party—CPN-UML— is more fierce and uglier. The factional fighting in this party, too, is perennial. But the equation has changed very often. This party was split once due to this factional fighting. Now there are two distinct groups in the CPN-UML-- one led by party chairperson Jhala Nath Khanal and other led by KP Oli. Madhav Nepal tends to be neutral but he is closer with the Oli group at present. Although Oli lost to Khanal in the election for the party chairperson in the national congress held in February this year, it was believed that Oli camp had majority in the central committee. The balance has recently tilted to Khanal because Ishwor Pokhrel, who had earlier been critical of Khanal, suddenly changed his loyalty and joined Khanal camps. After the national congress the two camps have been fighting bitterly to have sway in the party leadership. This ugly power tussle between these two groups came to the fore in public when the Khanal group used its authority to dissolve the influential district committee of Kathmandu, which is believed to be dominated by Oli supporters. So far, the factional fighting has been confined to ‘war of words’. But if not managed and resolved in time, this may take an ugly turn and may lead to party split as well.
The factional fighting is a long and permanent disease in the Nepali Congress as well. Right from its formation, the Nepali Congress has been blighted by tussle between the two camps. In the beginning, BP Koirala faced severe challenge from Matrika Koirala, Subarna Sumsher and Surya Prasad Upadhaya. However, he managed to accommodate the dissent successfully. After the death of BP, three distinct factions appeared in the Congress. They are: Girija Koirala group, Ganesh Man camp and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai faction. The factional fight turned uglier after the 1990 political change and formation of the Nepali Congress government headed by GP Koirala. Ganesh Man Singh, the commander of the 1990 popular movement, at one time had to announce his disassociation with the Nepali Congress party because of the heightened factional feud in the party. Similarly, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai chose to remain away from the party’s mainstream politics. Even after this, the factions in the Nepali Congress and their bickering have continued to exist. Sher Bahadur Deuba emerged as a leader of anti-Koirala faction. This factional fighting led to split in the Nepali Congress, in which Deuba played a catalytic role and formed his own party called Nepali Congress (Democratic). Although these two parties were reunified a few years ago, leaders and workers complain that the emotional unification is yet to be made.
The other parties also have not been free from the factional fighting and its fallout. Only recently, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum became the victim of this internal feud and the party was split into two groups—one headed by Upendra Yadav and the other by Bijaya Gachhadar. The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) has been split into three groups—RPP, RPP, (N) and Nepal Janashakti Party.
Parties are the strength of the multi-party democracy. But the parties are getting fragmented because of their failure to manage the internal differences. The other reason of party split and fragmentation is the cronyism culture in the leaders. Leaders want to run the parties not on democratic basis through collective approach but want to capture party and run it through their cliques and cronies. Parties cannot be strong and effective unless the leaders shake off the culture of cronyism. It is now high time that the leaders understand the feelings of the people exhibit genuine democratic culture.
It appears as though Nepal’s political parties are more like the gang of cronies than the political organizations. Some influential leaders are trying to turn the parties into their family business rather than political entity. This is not an isolated phenomenon of any particular party or leader but a general tendency in Nepal.
There are scores of political parties in existence in Nepal. In the Constituent Assembly held last year, 49 political parties registered in the Election Commission and contested the polls. Of them, only 25 political parties have their presence in the Constituent Assembly. If we look at their internal politics and activities, most of them are suffering from factionalism and power rivalry.
The bigger the party is the bitterer is the bickering in the leadership and internal life of the organization. Now look at the power struggle and factional fighting in these parties. Let us first analyze the UCPN-Maoist because it is the largest political party in the Constituent Assembly.
To look on the surface, the party is united and most disciplined. Generally, communist parties are considered to have strong discipline. But leadership cult and factionalism is more in the communist parties than other parties. Different groups exist in the communist party. Each group tries to give ideological colour to their factional fighting. As a result, the power struggle grows so intensely that different groups find it difficult to remain as a one entity. They then split and form different parties. If we look Nepal’s communist parties, there are more than a dozen groups claiming to be a genuine communist party and true representatives of the oppressed, downtrodden and working class people.
The Communist Party of Nepal was formed in 1949. Soon after its formation chasm appeared in the party and the process of split began. The Maoist party came into existence in the process of split and reorganization of the communist party. This party is not only the largest communist party in Nepal but also the biggest political force of Nepal at present. This fact was established after the Constituent Assembly election held last year in which the Maoists won clear-cut majority in the first-past- the post system of election. The Maoists were short of majority in the Constituent Assembly because of the proportionate electoral system. Had there not been proportionate election, the Maoists would have been in comfortable majority in the Constituent Assembly.
Factional fighting is fierce in the Maoist party. Right from the beginning, two distinct groups are visible in it. One was led by Prachanda and the other by Dr Baburam Bhattarai. The Prachanda-led group was strong whereas Baburam’s faction was in minority in the past. But the equation in the party changed after the Maoists signed the Comprehensive Peace Treaty and joined the peaceful politics. The new situation brought Prachanda and Baburam closer whereas Mohan Vaidya led the disgruntled group. Apart from Prachanda-Bauram group and Vaidya-led group, Ram Bahadur Thapa ‘Badal” has his own small group known as ‘middle-path’ faction. The Prachanda and Vaidya groups have their own approach which came to the fore officially in the recently held central committee meeting. In central committee meeting, the Vaidya group emerged so strong and forceful that Prachanda had to make some compromises and agreed to change the policies with due accommodation of the views expressed by the majority members. In the meeting, majority of the central committee members openly accused the leadership of deviating from revolutionary and proletariat path. Under pressure from the central committee members, the leadership agreed to form a panel to probe property and other activities of the Maoist leaders. This decision has been taken as a victory of Vaidya group on ideological ground.
The cronyism in the other mainstream communist party—CPN-UML— is more fierce and uglier. The factional fighting in this party, too, is perennial. But the equation has changed very often. This party was split once due to this factional fighting. Now there are two distinct groups in the CPN-UML-- one led by party chairperson Jhala Nath Khanal and other led by KP Oli. Madhav Nepal tends to be neutral but he is closer with the Oli group at present. Although Oli lost to Khanal in the election for the party chairperson in the national congress held in February this year, it was believed that Oli camp had majority in the central committee. The balance has recently tilted to Khanal because Ishwor Pokhrel, who had earlier been critical of Khanal, suddenly changed his loyalty and joined Khanal camps. After the national congress the two camps have been fighting bitterly to have sway in the party leadership. This ugly power tussle between these two groups came to the fore in public when the Khanal group used its authority to dissolve the influential district committee of Kathmandu, which is believed to be dominated by Oli supporters. So far, the factional fighting has been confined to ‘war of words’. But if not managed and resolved in time, this may take an ugly turn and may lead to party split as well.
The factional fighting is a long and permanent disease in the Nepali Congress as well. Right from its formation, the Nepali Congress has been blighted by tussle between the two camps. In the beginning, BP Koirala faced severe challenge from Matrika Koirala, Subarna Sumsher and Surya Prasad Upadhaya. However, he managed to accommodate the dissent successfully. After the death of BP, three distinct factions appeared in the Congress. They are: Girija Koirala group, Ganesh Man camp and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai faction. The factional fight turned uglier after the 1990 political change and formation of the Nepali Congress government headed by GP Koirala. Ganesh Man Singh, the commander of the 1990 popular movement, at one time had to announce his disassociation with the Nepali Congress party because of the heightened factional feud in the party. Similarly, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai chose to remain away from the party’s mainstream politics. Even after this, the factions in the Nepali Congress and their bickering have continued to exist. Sher Bahadur Deuba emerged as a leader of anti-Koirala faction. This factional fighting led to split in the Nepali Congress, in which Deuba played a catalytic role and formed his own party called Nepali Congress (Democratic). Although these two parties were reunified a few years ago, leaders and workers complain that the emotional unification is yet to be made.
The other parties also have not been free from the factional fighting and its fallout. Only recently, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum became the victim of this internal feud and the party was split into two groups—one headed by Upendra Yadav and the other by Bijaya Gachhadar. The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) has been split into three groups—RPP, RPP, (N) and Nepal Janashakti Party.
Parties are the strength of the multi-party democracy. But the parties are getting fragmented because of their failure to manage the internal differences. The other reason of party split and fragmentation is the cronyism culture in the leaders. Leaders want to run the parties not on democratic basis through collective approach but want to capture party and run it through their cliques and cronies. Parties cannot be strong and effective unless the leaders shake off the culture of cronyism. It is now high time that the leaders understand the feelings of the people exhibit genuine democratic culture.
Comments
Post a Comment