Factional rivalry takes ugly turn
Yuba Nath Lamsal
The inter-party and intra-party wrangling have hit hard our national politics. One can understand inter-party conflict because of parties' different ideological base, political orientation and economic goals. But the worrisome part is the intra-party wrangling and rivalry which have taken ugly turn recently. Personality cult among the leaders of the same party and factional fighting within parties have fettered and impaired the political and peace process that is underway for the last five years. No political party-big or small, is free from the intra-party bickering. The bigger the party, the stiffer is the rivalry. Given the open and intense rivalry in the parties, it seems that parties have lost their real quality but degenerated into loose alliances of different interest groups. Political parties are formed, run and guided by certain ideology, principle, political commitment and goals. Thus, inter-party differences are natural. But differences on ideology and programmes in the same political party cannot be understood.The country is already bitten by nasty inter-party conflict. The dispute among the parties on several key issues has prolongoued political crisis in the country. But parties are trying to narrow down differences which is a positive indication in our national politics. The problem has been more serious because the leaders have not been able to manage the differences and disputes within parties. The present developments have shown that intra-party differences and disputes are more serious than the inter-party dispute. In some issues, the leaders are prepared to make compromises with other parties rather than making consensus to the leaders of their own parties and their rival groups. This is more with the UCPN-Maoist and the CPN-UML than the Nepali Congress and other parties.Currently the political process has stagnated due mainly to differences on some of the key issues that are linked with peace and constitution. In principle, all political parties are committed to peace and constitution. However, their actions do not match with their verbal commitments. In rhetoric and public speech, no political party and leader is against peace and constitution. Such commitment and rhetoric appear to be only for public consumption to fool and deceive the people and international community. The stance suddenly takes a U-turn in the closed door debate and discussion. This duplicity and double standard have mutilated the peace and political process and only prolongoued the crisis. The inconsistency and discrepancy in rhetoric and action is the major problem of contemporary Nepal that has created hitch and hiccups in finding an amicable solution to the problem the country is facing at present.This is a case of dishonesty and insincerity of politicians and political parties. and also a testimony of the fact that leaders are not guided by national interest but are motivated more by partisan agenda and interest of their clique within their own party. Some leaders are not motivated even by the interest of the party but by his/her personal interest and the interest of a coterie. This is a chronic problem in our national politics, which exist in all political parties. It is, perhaps, this reason why politics is being christened by the people in Nepal as a game of treachery, deceit and duplicity. Even leaders and political activists agree this in private although they deny in public. The politics of deception is guided by lust for power, position and profit. Politics should be a service to the people and the country through which the interest of the nation and the people are served. However, politics in present Nepal is being taken as a lucrative commercial venture that is expected to give profit to the politicians. The more you deceive the people, the more successful leader you become in Nepal. Nothing can be bigger irony than this situation. This mentality has corroded the value of politics, which, in principle, is a game of fair people. But politics in Nepal is now being viewed as a vocation of crooks, criminals and corrupt. The pursuit of power, profit and position has guided the politics that has eroded the fundamental values of politics. The fractions and fissures in parties are the products of the mentality that treats politics a profit making venture. This tendency has also awfully afflicted the image of leaders and eroded people's faith on parties.This situation arrived in the absence of statesmanship in our leaders. It looks no statesman was ever born in Nepal. Most of those, who came up in our political scene in the name of leaders and politicians, eventually degenerated into the status of chieftains, gang leaders and political thugs. The country is now in need of statesmen but unfortunately we have none. Had there been statesman in our parties, they would have managed internal turmoil of the parties and ground for national consensus on national issues. But the intense factional fighting within the parties and vicious conflict among the parties only indicates the fact that our leaders lack even minimum political ethos. All political parties are suffering from this uncultured syndrome which has given rise to intra-party rivalry and fighting. Let us look at the nature and extent of the intra-party rivalry and enmity in all major parties. The UCPN-Maoist is currently the largest political party and so is the extent of factional politics and fighting in it. There are three distinct factions in the Maoist party. The three factions are Prachanda group, Mohan Vaidya group and Baburam Bhattarai group. As the factional fighting escalates in the UCPN-Maoist, several other groups are also emerging or are likely to emerge. The rivalry among these factions is so spiteful that they have even indulged in physical attacks and character assassination against one another. The crux of the issue that has created the rift among them is the one that related to the party's tactical policy. On this issue Prachanda and Baburam groups are together as they have similar approach while Mohan Vaidya group has different view. Prachanda and Baburam want the tasks of constitution writing and peace process to be concluded even making certain compromises on issues including the management of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). However, Mohan Vaidya is against any kind of compromise and wants the management of the PLA and the peace process should go hand in hand. Vaidya wants the continuity of the programme of popular revolt should the constitution writing process fails while Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai due are of the opinion that the revolt is not possible and feasible at present because, according to them, people want peace and constitution but not the revolt.The factional fighting is not a new phenomenon in the Nepali Congress. Right from the beginning, the party has suffered from groupism. At present two visible camps are at work in the Nepali Congress. One is led by party chairperson Sushil Koirala and the other one by senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba. Both the groups are in the struggle for their own existence and power. They have no ideological differences because ideology has taken a back seat in the Nepali Congress and the profit politics has gained momentum. But these two groups tend to present contradictory views on every issue just to show that they are different from the other. Similar is the case with the CPN-UML. The factional rivalry in the CPN-UML, too, is bitter. There are three groups in the CPN-UML, which are known as Khanal group, Oli group and Nepal group. Each of the group is trying to eliminate the other. The CPN-UML, too, gave up ideological ground long ago but has adopted the politics of convenience. Thus, there is no ideological dispute in this party but the rivalry is for internal as well as state power.The rift has afflicted the Madhes based parties more than others. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum split twice in the period of two years. Terai Madhesh Loktantrik Party, too, split. The Sadbhavana Party has been divided into five groups. And other political parties, too, are not free from the factional syndrome.The factional fighting in the party has had its own repercussion in the constitution writing and the peace process, which is already visible. Although all the groups try to give ideological and political colour to the intra-party battle, the rivalry, in reality, is not for ideology and values but for power and position. The animosity among the groups within the same party is so bitter that they may have sense of amity with other parties rather than with the rival group of their own party. This shows culture of bitterness and malevolence in our political party, which does not at all serve any purpose. This unhealthy rivalry devoid of principle is not likely to lead the country and politics to right direction but may cause deviation and degeneration in the party and leaders, which would be detrimental to the country, people and the nascent democracy.
The inter-party and intra-party wrangling have hit hard our national politics. One can understand inter-party conflict because of parties' different ideological base, political orientation and economic goals. But the worrisome part is the intra-party wrangling and rivalry which have taken ugly turn recently. Personality cult among the leaders of the same party and factional fighting within parties have fettered and impaired the political and peace process that is underway for the last five years. No political party-big or small, is free from the intra-party bickering. The bigger the party, the stiffer is the rivalry. Given the open and intense rivalry in the parties, it seems that parties have lost their real quality but degenerated into loose alliances of different interest groups. Political parties are formed, run and guided by certain ideology, principle, political commitment and goals. Thus, inter-party differences are natural. But differences on ideology and programmes in the same political party cannot be understood.The country is already bitten by nasty inter-party conflict. The dispute among the parties on several key issues has prolongoued political crisis in the country. But parties are trying to narrow down differences which is a positive indication in our national politics. The problem has been more serious because the leaders have not been able to manage the differences and disputes within parties. The present developments have shown that intra-party differences and disputes are more serious than the inter-party dispute. In some issues, the leaders are prepared to make compromises with other parties rather than making consensus to the leaders of their own parties and their rival groups. This is more with the UCPN-Maoist and the CPN-UML than the Nepali Congress and other parties.Currently the political process has stagnated due mainly to differences on some of the key issues that are linked with peace and constitution. In principle, all political parties are committed to peace and constitution. However, their actions do not match with their verbal commitments. In rhetoric and public speech, no political party and leader is against peace and constitution. Such commitment and rhetoric appear to be only for public consumption to fool and deceive the people and international community. The stance suddenly takes a U-turn in the closed door debate and discussion. This duplicity and double standard have mutilated the peace and political process and only prolongoued the crisis. The inconsistency and discrepancy in rhetoric and action is the major problem of contemporary Nepal that has created hitch and hiccups in finding an amicable solution to the problem the country is facing at present.This is a case of dishonesty and insincerity of politicians and political parties. and also a testimony of the fact that leaders are not guided by national interest but are motivated more by partisan agenda and interest of their clique within their own party. Some leaders are not motivated even by the interest of the party but by his/her personal interest and the interest of a coterie. This is a chronic problem in our national politics, which exist in all political parties. It is, perhaps, this reason why politics is being christened by the people in Nepal as a game of treachery, deceit and duplicity. Even leaders and political activists agree this in private although they deny in public. The politics of deception is guided by lust for power, position and profit. Politics should be a service to the people and the country through which the interest of the nation and the people are served. However, politics in present Nepal is being taken as a lucrative commercial venture that is expected to give profit to the politicians. The more you deceive the people, the more successful leader you become in Nepal. Nothing can be bigger irony than this situation. This mentality has corroded the value of politics, which, in principle, is a game of fair people. But politics in Nepal is now being viewed as a vocation of crooks, criminals and corrupt. The pursuit of power, profit and position has guided the politics that has eroded the fundamental values of politics. The fractions and fissures in parties are the products of the mentality that treats politics a profit making venture. This tendency has also awfully afflicted the image of leaders and eroded people's faith on parties.This situation arrived in the absence of statesmanship in our leaders. It looks no statesman was ever born in Nepal. Most of those, who came up in our political scene in the name of leaders and politicians, eventually degenerated into the status of chieftains, gang leaders and political thugs. The country is now in need of statesmen but unfortunately we have none. Had there been statesman in our parties, they would have managed internal turmoil of the parties and ground for national consensus on national issues. But the intense factional fighting within the parties and vicious conflict among the parties only indicates the fact that our leaders lack even minimum political ethos. All political parties are suffering from this uncultured syndrome which has given rise to intra-party rivalry and fighting. Let us look at the nature and extent of the intra-party rivalry and enmity in all major parties. The UCPN-Maoist is currently the largest political party and so is the extent of factional politics and fighting in it. There are three distinct factions in the Maoist party. The three factions are Prachanda group, Mohan Vaidya group and Baburam Bhattarai group. As the factional fighting escalates in the UCPN-Maoist, several other groups are also emerging or are likely to emerge. The rivalry among these factions is so spiteful that they have even indulged in physical attacks and character assassination against one another. The crux of the issue that has created the rift among them is the one that related to the party's tactical policy. On this issue Prachanda and Baburam groups are together as they have similar approach while Mohan Vaidya group has different view. Prachanda and Baburam want the tasks of constitution writing and peace process to be concluded even making certain compromises on issues including the management of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). However, Mohan Vaidya is against any kind of compromise and wants the management of the PLA and the peace process should go hand in hand. Vaidya wants the continuity of the programme of popular revolt should the constitution writing process fails while Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai due are of the opinion that the revolt is not possible and feasible at present because, according to them, people want peace and constitution but not the revolt.The factional fighting is not a new phenomenon in the Nepali Congress. Right from the beginning, the party has suffered from groupism. At present two visible camps are at work in the Nepali Congress. One is led by party chairperson Sushil Koirala and the other one by senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba. Both the groups are in the struggle for their own existence and power. They have no ideological differences because ideology has taken a back seat in the Nepali Congress and the profit politics has gained momentum. But these two groups tend to present contradictory views on every issue just to show that they are different from the other. Similar is the case with the CPN-UML. The factional rivalry in the CPN-UML, too, is bitter. There are three groups in the CPN-UML, which are known as Khanal group, Oli group and Nepal group. Each of the group is trying to eliminate the other. The CPN-UML, too, gave up ideological ground long ago but has adopted the politics of convenience. Thus, there is no ideological dispute in this party but the rivalry is for internal as well as state power.The rift has afflicted the Madhes based parties more than others. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum split twice in the period of two years. Terai Madhesh Loktantrik Party, too, split. The Sadbhavana Party has been divided into five groups. And other political parties, too, are not free from the factional syndrome.The factional fighting in the party has had its own repercussion in the constitution writing and the peace process, which is already visible. Although all the groups try to give ideological and political colour to the intra-party battle, the rivalry, in reality, is not for ideology and values but for power and position. The animosity among the groups within the same party is so bitter that they may have sense of amity with other parties rather than with the rival group of their own party. This shows culture of bitterness and malevolence in our political party, which does not at all serve any purpose. This unhealthy rivalry devoid of principle is not likely to lead the country and politics to right direction but may cause deviation and degeneration in the party and leaders, which would be detrimental to the country, people and the nascent democracy.
Comments
Post a Comment