Factional politics dogs Nepal parties
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Political parties make up the key players in a democracy. In essence, political parties are the life blood of multi-party democracy. However, the parties themselves become a problem when they forget their role and responsibility and get bogged down in partisan interests.
In the present context of Nepal, the political parties have become the problem. They are the ones that have blocked the entire political and peace process and created the protracted deadlock and crisis in the country. Behind the problem lies factionalism in the parties. No political party in Nepal has so far been able to get rid of it. Factional politics rules the roost in all the political parties at present.
The bigger the party, the more factions and groups they have. But the smaller parties, too, are not free from this factional syndrome. The way factions exist and operate within the parties, our political parties can be best described as a coalition of different factions and interest groups. Factional politics and fighting have become particularly intense in the present context.
Interest groups
The Nepali Congress is the oldest party among the existing political parties in Nepal. On the basis of its strength in the Constituent Assembly formed through the election held the year before, the Nepali Congress is the second largest party in Nepal. Right from the beginning, this party has been plagued by factional politics. Different leaders have created their own factions within the party and accordingly lobbied for the interest and benefit of their groups and their members. The leaders have hardly paid attention to the overall interest of the party. Instead, they are more concerned about the interest of their own clique.
The Nepali Congress was born out of the unity of two parties - one party led by Subarna Shumsher Rana and the other headed by BP Koirala. Subarna’s party was the Nepal Prajatantra Congress and BP’s party was the Nepal National Congress. With the merger of these two parties, the Nepali Congress party was created. Right from its creation, the Nepali Congress had distinctly two groups within the party - one loyal to BP Koirala and the other to Subarna Shumsher. This factionalism within the Nepali Congress has continued throughout its history.
After BP’s death, the party developed the concept of a troika or collective leadership of three senior leaders - Ganesh Man Singh, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and Girija Prasad Koirala. Accordingly, the troika was entrusted with the responsibility of running the party on the basis of collective leadership. But they created their own groups and camps instead of acting collectively. The ugly scene of factional politics in the Nepali Congress surfaced after the formation of the GP Koirala-led government in 1991.
Ganesh Man Singh did fire a salvo against Koirala, but he failed to tame the strong and ambitious Koirala. Instead, Ganesh Man quit the party towards the end of his life. In course of time, Bhattarai was also virtually marginalised, and Koirala held the sway in the Nepali Congress party.
The Nepali Congress continues to suffer from this old disease even at present. Several groups and sub-groups exist within the party. Sushil Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba groups are clearly visible in the Nepali Congress. Both the groups are doing their best to outmaneuver the other in the party. Although the Koirala group has managed to have the upper hand in the party leadership after the national congress held a few months ago, the Deuba camp has not lost confidence and is doing everything possible to regain its lost image. The elected president, Sushil Koirala, has not been able to nominate the office bearers of the party even after four months of the national congress due to the factional struggle.
The UCPN-Maoist is the strongest party in Parliament at present. As a communist party, it is more disciplined than the other parties. This party has already seen splits and mergers at different intervals of time in the past. In this party, there are leaders and workers that have come from different schooling and have differing views and perspective on issues like Nepal’s revolution, ideological direction and relationship with other parties and countries.
The Maoists deny there is any kind of factionalism in the party. But factional politics has surfaced there in recent times. The fierce factional fighting was partially responsible for the resignation of Prachanda from the post of prime minister. Prachanda was not in the mood of quitting, but factional politics took an ugly turn which forced him to announce his resignation.
There are clearly two visible groups in the Maoist party. Previously when the party was in the government, the equation in the party was different. There were two groups - one led by Prachanda, which had the backing of Baburam Bhattarai and his group. The other group was led by Mohan Vaidya alias Kiran. The Vaidya group was critical of the Prachanda-led government for not being able to bring about radical changes as per the party’s policies and workers’ expectation. The Vaidya group had an upper hand in the party’s organisation, which instructed Prachanda to step down over the issue concerning the sacking of the army chief.
But once the party was out of the government, the equation in the UCPN-Maoist changed. Three distinct groups emerged - Prachanda group, Vaidya group and Bhattarai group. These three groups remained in existence until the Palungtar plenum. After the plenum, Prachanda and Vaidya have come closer whereas Bhattarai tends to differ with them politically and ideologically. Thus, there are now the Prachanda-Vaidya group and Baburam Bhattarai group in the UCPN.
There are other sub-groups within these two broad groups as well. There is a sharp difference and struggle between the two groups in the UCPN-Maoist, which became visible during the party’s orientation programme in Kathmandu recently.
The other key political force is the CPN-UML, which is suffering from ideological dilemma and ugly factional politics. This is a communist party in name but not in its programmes and policies. Instead, the UML is a social democratic party. But ugly factional politics is also a major characteristic of its internal life. Apparently, there are three major groups within the party. One is led by the party chairperson, Jhalanath Khanal, the second by Madhav Nepal and third by K.P. Oli. There are sub-groups even within these three major groups.
Analysed from the factional politics in the CPN-UML, this party can best be described as a federation of groups and sub-groups. There is intense tussle among these groups. Some distinct characteristics of these groups have surfaced with regard to national politics. The Khanal group is relatively soft with the Maoists, while the KP Oli group is sharply critical of the Maoists and close to the Nepali Congress.
The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party have already split due to factional fighting among the leaders for post, perks and position. Similarly, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party is divided into three parties because of the clash among different interest groups. Once a unified party, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party has three forms - the original Rastriya Prajatantra Party led by Pashupati Shumsher Rana, Rastriya Jana Shakti Party led by Surya Bahadur Thapa and Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal led by Kamal Thapa.
Internal democracy
Since each group within a party is vying to meet the interest of its own camp than the overall interest of the party, it would be naïve to expect them to serve national interest. Internal democracy within the parties is necessary, which makes them lively and vibrant. But factional politics is by no means internal democracy but a tussle and struggle for meeting their respective vested interests. The politics of vested interests has often led to frequent change of government and power equation in the party, which is one of the contributing factors to Nepal’s instability.
Political parties make up the key players in a democracy. In essence, political parties are the life blood of multi-party democracy. However, the parties themselves become a problem when they forget their role and responsibility and get bogged down in partisan interests.
In the present context of Nepal, the political parties have become the problem. They are the ones that have blocked the entire political and peace process and created the protracted deadlock and crisis in the country. Behind the problem lies factionalism in the parties. No political party in Nepal has so far been able to get rid of it. Factional politics rules the roost in all the political parties at present.
The bigger the party, the more factions and groups they have. But the smaller parties, too, are not free from this factional syndrome. The way factions exist and operate within the parties, our political parties can be best described as a coalition of different factions and interest groups. Factional politics and fighting have become particularly intense in the present context.
Interest groups
The Nepali Congress is the oldest party among the existing political parties in Nepal. On the basis of its strength in the Constituent Assembly formed through the election held the year before, the Nepali Congress is the second largest party in Nepal. Right from the beginning, this party has been plagued by factional politics. Different leaders have created their own factions within the party and accordingly lobbied for the interest and benefit of their groups and their members. The leaders have hardly paid attention to the overall interest of the party. Instead, they are more concerned about the interest of their own clique.
The Nepali Congress was born out of the unity of two parties - one party led by Subarna Shumsher Rana and the other headed by BP Koirala. Subarna’s party was the Nepal Prajatantra Congress and BP’s party was the Nepal National Congress. With the merger of these two parties, the Nepali Congress party was created. Right from its creation, the Nepali Congress had distinctly two groups within the party - one loyal to BP Koirala and the other to Subarna Shumsher. This factionalism within the Nepali Congress has continued throughout its history.
After BP’s death, the party developed the concept of a troika or collective leadership of three senior leaders - Ganesh Man Singh, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and Girija Prasad Koirala. Accordingly, the troika was entrusted with the responsibility of running the party on the basis of collective leadership. But they created their own groups and camps instead of acting collectively. The ugly scene of factional politics in the Nepali Congress surfaced after the formation of the GP Koirala-led government in 1991.
Ganesh Man Singh did fire a salvo against Koirala, but he failed to tame the strong and ambitious Koirala. Instead, Ganesh Man quit the party towards the end of his life. In course of time, Bhattarai was also virtually marginalised, and Koirala held the sway in the Nepali Congress party.
The Nepali Congress continues to suffer from this old disease even at present. Several groups and sub-groups exist within the party. Sushil Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba groups are clearly visible in the Nepali Congress. Both the groups are doing their best to outmaneuver the other in the party. Although the Koirala group has managed to have the upper hand in the party leadership after the national congress held a few months ago, the Deuba camp has not lost confidence and is doing everything possible to regain its lost image. The elected president, Sushil Koirala, has not been able to nominate the office bearers of the party even after four months of the national congress due to the factional struggle.
The UCPN-Maoist is the strongest party in Parliament at present. As a communist party, it is more disciplined than the other parties. This party has already seen splits and mergers at different intervals of time in the past. In this party, there are leaders and workers that have come from different schooling and have differing views and perspective on issues like Nepal’s revolution, ideological direction and relationship with other parties and countries.
The Maoists deny there is any kind of factionalism in the party. But factional politics has surfaced there in recent times. The fierce factional fighting was partially responsible for the resignation of Prachanda from the post of prime minister. Prachanda was not in the mood of quitting, but factional politics took an ugly turn which forced him to announce his resignation.
There are clearly two visible groups in the Maoist party. Previously when the party was in the government, the equation in the party was different. There were two groups - one led by Prachanda, which had the backing of Baburam Bhattarai and his group. The other group was led by Mohan Vaidya alias Kiran. The Vaidya group was critical of the Prachanda-led government for not being able to bring about radical changes as per the party’s policies and workers’ expectation. The Vaidya group had an upper hand in the party’s organisation, which instructed Prachanda to step down over the issue concerning the sacking of the army chief.
But once the party was out of the government, the equation in the UCPN-Maoist changed. Three distinct groups emerged - Prachanda group, Vaidya group and Bhattarai group. These three groups remained in existence until the Palungtar plenum. After the plenum, Prachanda and Vaidya have come closer whereas Bhattarai tends to differ with them politically and ideologically. Thus, there are now the Prachanda-Vaidya group and Baburam Bhattarai group in the UCPN.
There are other sub-groups within these two broad groups as well. There is a sharp difference and struggle between the two groups in the UCPN-Maoist, which became visible during the party’s orientation programme in Kathmandu recently.
The other key political force is the CPN-UML, which is suffering from ideological dilemma and ugly factional politics. This is a communist party in name but not in its programmes and policies. Instead, the UML is a social democratic party. But ugly factional politics is also a major characteristic of its internal life. Apparently, there are three major groups within the party. One is led by the party chairperson, Jhalanath Khanal, the second by Madhav Nepal and third by K.P. Oli. There are sub-groups even within these three major groups.
Analysed from the factional politics in the CPN-UML, this party can best be described as a federation of groups and sub-groups. There is intense tussle among these groups. Some distinct characteristics of these groups have surfaced with regard to national politics. The Khanal group is relatively soft with the Maoists, while the KP Oli group is sharply critical of the Maoists and close to the Nepali Congress.
The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party have already split due to factional fighting among the leaders for post, perks and position. Similarly, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party is divided into three parties because of the clash among different interest groups. Once a unified party, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party has three forms - the original Rastriya Prajatantra Party led by Pashupati Shumsher Rana, Rastriya Jana Shakti Party led by Surya Bahadur Thapa and Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal led by Kamal Thapa.
Internal democracy
Since each group within a party is vying to meet the interest of its own camp than the overall interest of the party, it would be naïve to expect them to serve national interest. Internal democracy within the parties is necessary, which makes them lively and vibrant. But factional politics is by no means internal democracy but a tussle and struggle for meeting their respective vested interests. The politics of vested interests has often led to frequent change of government and power equation in the party, which is one of the contributing factors to Nepal’s instability.
Comments
Post a Comment