Congress for collective leadership
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
The Nepali Congress is in labour pain—the pain it is going through to give a birth to institutional decision making process and collective leadership in the party. With the weakening health of aging GP Koirala, who held the mantle of the party leadership for almost two decades, the Nepali Congress is returning to the old concept of collective leadership.
When BP Koirala was in death bed, the founder of the Nepali Congress had advised his friends and followers in the Nepali Congress to adopt collective leadership. Even when BP was alive and leading the Nepali Congress, he had given due role and respect to other leaders in the party. BP always consulted with other leaders before taking any vital decisions of the party and tried to lead the party in a genuinely democratic way. This made BP the most revered leader within the party. After BP’s demise, the concept of troika emerged in the Nepali Congress party. As per this concept, Ganesh Man Singh Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and Girija Prasad Koirala collectively led the party. Bhattarai was chosen as the party president, Singh as a supreme leader and Koirala as the general secretary of the party. This arrangement worked perfectly until the political change and establishment of democracy in 1990. When the Congress went to power after the 1990 political change, the problem surfaced in the leadership.
In the post 1990 political change, three distinct groups emerged in the party and they struggled to have upper hand in the party organization. These groups were mainly known as Ganesh Man Singh faction, Bhattarai group and Koirala camp. The simmering power tussle among the three factions turned ugly when KP Bhattarai, who had lost the election in 1991, contested the by-election in 1992 from Kathmandu’s Cosntituency-1. Girija Prasad Koirala had been elected Prime Minister after the Congress victory in 1991 general election. When Bhattarai contested the by-election, he was portrayed as the candidate who would immediately replace Koirala as the Prime Minister of Nepal if he won the election. This annoyed Koirala and his supporters and they openly came up opposing Bhattarai’s candidacy. Although both the camps made a patch up and reconciled, Bhattarai could not win the election as the friction between the two camps had already caused a huge damage to the party’s image. The mistrust could not be wiped away. Instead, the gulf between the two camps further widened.
This power tussle turned even uglier in 1994 when the government’s policies and programmes were defeated in parliament because of some lawmakers of the Nepali Congress who belonged to anti-Koirala camp. The defeat of government’s annual policies and programmes forced Koirala from premiership and announce snap polls. In the mid-term election, the Congress was reduced to second position in parliament whereas the opposition CPN-UML emerged as the largest party in the House.
This situation created political instability in the country as the governments were frequently changed. A few members could play the role of changing the government as no party had the majority to form the government. This is the period when the Maoist insurgency began and grew. The country fell into a quagmire of conflict for more than a decade, which caused a huge damage to the country. Now the situation has changed and peace has dawned after the political parties and the Maoists reached a peace agreement to manage the conflict in an amicable way.
The instability and conflict in the country is linked with the policies and their functioning of the parties in general and the Nepali Congress in particular. It has been a general practice that power struggle intensifies when the Congress goes to power. When the party remains in opposition, nothing happens but factional fighting begins soon it goes to power. This factional fighting ultimately led the split of the Nepali Congress. If the Congress had remained united, the Congress government would have fallen in 1994 even when it had the majority in the House. If the Congress government had completed its full five year term, the situation of instability and uncertainty would not have arrived. Koirala’s arrogance to corner the opposition parties as well as the dissidents within his own party pushed the country into conflict and instability.
The party leaders including Girija Prasad Koirala later realized this and made some efforts to unify the party and strengthen its organizational base. But this realization lived short and as soon as the party went to power, the leaders forgot everything and again started factional fighting. Although the two factions of the Congress united two years ago, leaders and workers are still in a divided mood.
The imbroglio in the Nepali Congress is at its height at present. The issue surfaced right after the Nepali Congress joined the Madhav Nepal-led government. As the Congress central committee failed to finalize the team to join the coalition government, party president Koirala was entrusted to take decision on this issue. Utilizing this opportunity, Koirala sent her own daughter Sujata Koirala to the cabinet leading the Congress team. This created furor in the party and several party leaders including party’s acting president and leader of the Congress parliamentary party objected this decision.
It is the first time that the party leaders have challenged and questioned Koirala’s decision since he assumed the position of party president. This is an indication of Koirala’s waning influence in the party. As his health has been deteriorating for the last couple of years, he is not regularly attending the meetings and other activities of the parties. Instead, he has named Sushil Koirala as the acting president of the party and delegated his authority. But he suddenly becomes active when the interest of the family and relatives is at stake.
But when it came to the selection of the ministers representing the Nepali Congress in the present coalition cabinet, he did not think necessary to formally discuss in the party’s apex body. The situation further worsened when Koirala exerted pressure on Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal to appoint his Sujata Koirala as the deputy prime minister, despite objection from the influential central leaders. In this way, Koirala acted in an authoritarian manner for which he has been under criticism.
Now the Nepali Congress is in cross road. Although Nepali Congress championed democracy and pluralism in principle, it was hardly put in practice when it comes to internal democracy in the party. The one-man rule prevailed and Koirala as the party president acted like an authoritarian leader which was against the long-cherished principle of the Nepali Congress. Girija Prasad Koirala is the senior most leader of the country, who fought for democracy and democratic ideals for more than five decades. It does not, thus, suit to a person of that stature to ignore the ideals and principles he fought throughout his life just for the interest of his family.
What the Congress leaders have raised is a genuine issue for the democratization of the party. This might mark an end to the one-man leadership and rule in the Nepali Congress. This is also the beginning of the collective leadership in the party.
In terms of principle and ideology, Congress is a social democratic party. But the problem lies on the implementation. The policies and practices it adopted for the last two decades since 1990 political change suggest that Nepali Congress has abandoned its long-cherished principle of democratic socialism Instead it has embraced ultra-capitalism. The discrepancy between the party’s official doctrine and practice is also a major problem in the party. This is a testimony that the Nepali Congress has not functioned in accordance with its ideals and principles. The entire problems emerged because of this discrepancy.
Now the time has come for the Nepali Congress to introspect its principles, policies and practices. The Congress must rectify the past mistakes and set a new direction for the democratization of the party. Collective leadership and democratic decision-making process are the hall marks of democracy. The Nepali Congress, thus, must discard the practice of one-man dictatorship in the party and adopt the pluralist and democratic culture in the decision making. Although painful, the current imbroglio would definitely bring about a new system, new culture and new process in the Nepali Congress party.
The Nepali Congress is in labour pain—the pain it is going through to give a birth to institutional decision making process and collective leadership in the party. With the weakening health of aging GP Koirala, who held the mantle of the party leadership for almost two decades, the Nepali Congress is returning to the old concept of collective leadership.
When BP Koirala was in death bed, the founder of the Nepali Congress had advised his friends and followers in the Nepali Congress to adopt collective leadership. Even when BP was alive and leading the Nepali Congress, he had given due role and respect to other leaders in the party. BP always consulted with other leaders before taking any vital decisions of the party and tried to lead the party in a genuinely democratic way. This made BP the most revered leader within the party. After BP’s demise, the concept of troika emerged in the Nepali Congress party. As per this concept, Ganesh Man Singh Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and Girija Prasad Koirala collectively led the party. Bhattarai was chosen as the party president, Singh as a supreme leader and Koirala as the general secretary of the party. This arrangement worked perfectly until the political change and establishment of democracy in 1990. When the Congress went to power after the 1990 political change, the problem surfaced in the leadership.
In the post 1990 political change, three distinct groups emerged in the party and they struggled to have upper hand in the party organization. These groups were mainly known as Ganesh Man Singh faction, Bhattarai group and Koirala camp. The simmering power tussle among the three factions turned ugly when KP Bhattarai, who had lost the election in 1991, contested the by-election in 1992 from Kathmandu’s Cosntituency-1. Girija Prasad Koirala had been elected Prime Minister after the Congress victory in 1991 general election. When Bhattarai contested the by-election, he was portrayed as the candidate who would immediately replace Koirala as the Prime Minister of Nepal if he won the election. This annoyed Koirala and his supporters and they openly came up opposing Bhattarai’s candidacy. Although both the camps made a patch up and reconciled, Bhattarai could not win the election as the friction between the two camps had already caused a huge damage to the party’s image. The mistrust could not be wiped away. Instead, the gulf between the two camps further widened.
This power tussle turned even uglier in 1994 when the government’s policies and programmes were defeated in parliament because of some lawmakers of the Nepali Congress who belonged to anti-Koirala camp. The defeat of government’s annual policies and programmes forced Koirala from premiership and announce snap polls. In the mid-term election, the Congress was reduced to second position in parliament whereas the opposition CPN-UML emerged as the largest party in the House.
This situation created political instability in the country as the governments were frequently changed. A few members could play the role of changing the government as no party had the majority to form the government. This is the period when the Maoist insurgency began and grew. The country fell into a quagmire of conflict for more than a decade, which caused a huge damage to the country. Now the situation has changed and peace has dawned after the political parties and the Maoists reached a peace agreement to manage the conflict in an amicable way.
The instability and conflict in the country is linked with the policies and their functioning of the parties in general and the Nepali Congress in particular. It has been a general practice that power struggle intensifies when the Congress goes to power. When the party remains in opposition, nothing happens but factional fighting begins soon it goes to power. This factional fighting ultimately led the split of the Nepali Congress. If the Congress had remained united, the Congress government would have fallen in 1994 even when it had the majority in the House. If the Congress government had completed its full five year term, the situation of instability and uncertainty would not have arrived. Koirala’s arrogance to corner the opposition parties as well as the dissidents within his own party pushed the country into conflict and instability.
The party leaders including Girija Prasad Koirala later realized this and made some efforts to unify the party and strengthen its organizational base. But this realization lived short and as soon as the party went to power, the leaders forgot everything and again started factional fighting. Although the two factions of the Congress united two years ago, leaders and workers are still in a divided mood.
The imbroglio in the Nepali Congress is at its height at present. The issue surfaced right after the Nepali Congress joined the Madhav Nepal-led government. As the Congress central committee failed to finalize the team to join the coalition government, party president Koirala was entrusted to take decision on this issue. Utilizing this opportunity, Koirala sent her own daughter Sujata Koirala to the cabinet leading the Congress team. This created furor in the party and several party leaders including party’s acting president and leader of the Congress parliamentary party objected this decision.
It is the first time that the party leaders have challenged and questioned Koirala’s decision since he assumed the position of party president. This is an indication of Koirala’s waning influence in the party. As his health has been deteriorating for the last couple of years, he is not regularly attending the meetings and other activities of the parties. Instead, he has named Sushil Koirala as the acting president of the party and delegated his authority. But he suddenly becomes active when the interest of the family and relatives is at stake.
But when it came to the selection of the ministers representing the Nepali Congress in the present coalition cabinet, he did not think necessary to formally discuss in the party’s apex body. The situation further worsened when Koirala exerted pressure on Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal to appoint his Sujata Koirala as the deputy prime minister, despite objection from the influential central leaders. In this way, Koirala acted in an authoritarian manner for which he has been under criticism.
Now the Nepali Congress is in cross road. Although Nepali Congress championed democracy and pluralism in principle, it was hardly put in practice when it comes to internal democracy in the party. The one-man rule prevailed and Koirala as the party president acted like an authoritarian leader which was against the long-cherished principle of the Nepali Congress. Girija Prasad Koirala is the senior most leader of the country, who fought for democracy and democratic ideals for more than five decades. It does not, thus, suit to a person of that stature to ignore the ideals and principles he fought throughout his life just for the interest of his family.
What the Congress leaders have raised is a genuine issue for the democratization of the party. This might mark an end to the one-man leadership and rule in the Nepali Congress. This is also the beginning of the collective leadership in the party.
In terms of principle and ideology, Congress is a social democratic party. But the problem lies on the implementation. The policies and practices it adopted for the last two decades since 1990 political change suggest that Nepali Congress has abandoned its long-cherished principle of democratic socialism Instead it has embraced ultra-capitalism. The discrepancy between the party’s official doctrine and practice is also a major problem in the party. This is a testimony that the Nepali Congress has not functioned in accordance with its ideals and principles. The entire problems emerged because of this discrepancy.
Now the time has come for the Nepali Congress to introspect its principles, policies and practices. The Congress must rectify the past mistakes and set a new direction for the democratization of the party. Collective leadership and democratic decision-making process are the hall marks of democracy. The Nepali Congress, thus, must discard the practice of one-man dictatorship in the party and adopt the pluralist and democratic culture in the decision making. Although painful, the current imbroglio would definitely bring about a new system, new culture and new process in the Nepali Congress party.
Comments
Post a Comment