The government led by Nepal Communist Party (NCP) with
a solid majority is in problem due to a prolonged intra-party feud. The
unification of the largest two left parties CPN-UML and CPN-Maoist Centre and
their subsequent victory in the elections of the federal parliament and
provincial assemblies had created hope for political stability that would
ultimately create a favourable environment for social and economic development.
But the party integration couldn't work as expected since the top leadership
did not live up to their promises and self-interest prevailed.
The recent tussle between the two chairmen of the
party has thrown a blanket of despair and division among the party cadres. KP
Gautam of the Gorkhapatra and Modnath Dhakal of The Rising Nepal talked
to Chief Advisor of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Standing Committee Member
of the Party, Bishnu Rimal, about the latest crisis in the NCP. Excerpts:
Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is not receiving
cooperation in his own party. What led to this situation?
This has not happened all of a sudden. A section in
the party has begun openly speaking against the Prime Minister. They started
demanding that he leave either the post of prime minister or chairman. If you
read the current blames to and comments on him, you see no reason for gherao or
obstruct him in his works because these accusations are superficial and are not
political. These comments are full of bias, frustration and impulse. It means
their intensions are not good.
What agreement was made during party integration?
There are rules that run the party. It was created
with the integration of two largest parties – the CPN-UML and Maoist Centre.
They had a dream while uniting the two largest political forces. Entire party
bases were ecstatic, and cadres were moving together in the villages even
before the formal announcement of the party unity. Legally, they were two
different political forces competing with each other but when there was an
alliance for the election, favourable environment for party integration was
immediately created. The chairmen of the two parties had taken the entire
responsibility of the integration and it was achieved when they forged a kind
of agreement and announced on May 17, 2018 at Baluwatar at a joint meeting of
the central committees of the two parties. Then it was agreed that the basis of
integration wouldn't be the popular votes garnered in the election, seats won
in the local elections and size of the party at the parliament. The policies
and methods of the party unification were created not on the basis of head
count but mutual understanding. It was not a traditional unification that
generally happens between a large and a small political party.
We said and believed that it was an equation of two
different political ideologies not that of the power. If it was a unification
of power, we would have counted every vote received. The committees would be
formed on power sharing of 75 per cent and 25 per cent as the Maoist had
received 1.1 million and UML 3.3 million votes. But we did not count it to
unite the parties and did it differently and said then that the decisions would
be made with mutual understanding until the party holds the general assembly.
The formula for the mutual understanding was that a proposal would be made with
the consent of both the chairmen, general secretary would present the agenda in
the Secretariat meeting and the issues not agreed initially would be resolved thgough
talks.
However, both the sides are exploiting the word
'consent' for their own interest?
The ups and downs that we see now are the result of
the breaking of the methodologies that were created to run the party in
consent. Some leaders are talking about creating a proposal against the prime
minister, this is the recent development in that row. The Secretariat meeting
was held for about 73 times in the past, and some members made their collective
opinion on the agenda before the meeting and imposed it in the meeting. The PM
multiple times requested not to do so and said that the party structure would
be disturbed if we begin to count the number of people from each party. But comrades
did not heed to that request. The recent strife happened as we forgot the path
of consent. When we try to adjust the system made for the integration during
the party unification, it certainly creates problems.
Approximately a year ago, the two presidents had
agreed that the party would be run by Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda as an
Executive Chairman and KP Sharma Oli would run the government for full
five-year term. It created good vibes in the Central Committee meeting in
January and February this year and the Standing Committee meeting before it.
The PM participated in the inauguration of both the meetings and let Prachanda
run the meeting. Then there were media reports saying 'no confidence' motion
could be presented after two years, which stirred the party line. Considering
the very issue, the Standing Committee was held for about 82 days. While
concluding the meeting in early September this year, the two chairmen discussed
multiple issues. In an effort to further clarify the issues of consent, it was
said that the general assembly would be organised in April 2022, Prachanda
would run the party as the executive chairman and the PM would run the
government. Most of the Standing Committee and Central Committee members say
that the party should move ahead on the basis of the decision of September 11
and Inter-party Directives issued on September 14. We have used a phrase
'cut-off date' to mark September 11 as a day to forget the things of the past and
hold the assessment of the weaknesses till the general convention. The PM is
trying to begin the integration from a fresh point but leaders from the party
secretariat are blaming him. It was like a rumour in the past but it’s come in
a series of written documents, even in the media. Sometimes I feel whether some
friends want to bypass the party's method, system and policies or sabotage the
party unification process.
Weren't there any lapses on the part of the chairman
and PM?
According to the media reports, there wasn't a
consent in the appointment of ministers as per the compliant letter. However,
they were only discussing the subjects before the 'cut-off date', it’s like
somebody is whining continuously in memory of the past events. That document
does not prove anything worthy beyond the agreement of September 11. If it was
about appointment of three ministers and ambassadors, the PM, in response to
the letter of the five leaders, had said that the Secretariat discussed the
principles in terms of the ministerial appointments and let the two chairmen
decide about it. There was a month-long discussion regarding the selection of
leaders for the posts. Before a day of the cabinet reshuffle, the PM had
obtained the consent about the leaders to be appointed from Prachanda and the
latter had clearly agreed to move ahead with the names. But the very next
morning, Prachanda asked the PM to appoint only the Finance Minister and let
the remaining portfolios vacant. But the PM had already sent the names to the
President and refused to backtrack from the decision.
However, it is not an event that caused the sky to
fall. If you tag General Secretary Bishnu Paudel and other two leaders with any
of the factions in the party, there would be further expansion of the cabinet
after Tihar. Candidates of other factions can be adjusted then. Prachanda
himself had proposed the ambassador to the USA while the two chairmen shared
consent on Lok Darshan Regmi's name. Regarding the ambassador to South Africa,
the PM asked to add another candidate as the Parliamentary Hearing Committee
raised the issue of inclusiveness because the other two candidates were
Brahmin. These are just the issues to debate, they do not affect the party
unity. In addition to that, the PM had answered about it in response to the
letter from the five leaders. If there were any different agreements after
September 11, let’s discuss them openly and review them. If we bruise our heart
with such issues, there are no reasons to be imbalanced.
In reference to the meeting with the RAW Chief, the
compliant letter has questioned about the nationalism of the PM. What do you
say about it?
PM Oli congratulated his Indian counterpart Narendra
Modi on the occasion of its Independence Day. As PM Oli raised the issues of
the border dispute and said the issue should be resolved at the earliest, PM
Modi said that he would send an envoy to talk about the matter. Could you
dictate a foreign PM to send a particular person as his envoy? No PM can choose
a person as an envoy of his foreign counterpart. PM Oli agreed on Modi's
proposal. Diplomatic notes were exchanged, Samanta Kumar Goyal came here, met
the PM and the notes were recorded at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. PM Modi’s
envoy met his counterpart here in Neal. The visit has created a more favourable
environment for talks between the two countries. Don't the leaders who are
raising the questions regarding this know about the diplomatic etiquettes or
track two diplomacy?
Do you think they raised the questions without any
basis?
It’s about troubling yourself when you question the
issue that is so clear. I request the leaders who are raising such issues just
to look at their background. PM Oli is not someone who executes such activities
in a hush-hush manner. Don't we know some of our leaders have reached Singapore
pretending a sickness and met the people from foreign secret services? This is
not the issue to be brought into discussion. We all know who meets the people
of which level. There are no exposes. The accusations made on the PM are
defamatory and character assassinating. They are refutable. This is not the
ideological discussion about political course or line.
There are signs of homework for reconciliation as
well. Would the PM answer the questions raised by the leaders?
The PM would give a written answer, he is not
someone who remains silent. He has asked for a 10-day period for the same.
However, Chairman Prachanda should clarify about the issues mentioned in the
complaint letter which have already been raised by him as the proposal in the
meeting. But I think PM is a political person and would answer politically, he
always stands by the party unity.
Meanwhile, there were talks about Chinese
ambassador's activism to resolve the intra-party crisis. Is this really
happening?
People who do not believe in their power and
strength talk about such things. What would the Chinese ambassador do? She is
not someone who would make someone party chair or the PM. It's a decision to be
taken by the party cadres and people. Didn't we for long tell India to refrain
from micro-management in Nepal? Hadn't that issue contested in the Standing Committee
meeting? We are firm in our stand that no country should try to micro-manage our
politics and society. We won't tolerate the intervention from any country of
people of other nation in our national issues. If there are foreign forces
involved in disturbing the internal harmony in the party or country, we must
break them. However, I don't think any of our leaders are weak enough to be
manipulated by some external force.
Many people feel that the NCP has reached the brink
of split. What would happen in the near future?
In my understanding, no chairman is allowed to
introduce a proposal single-handedly, there should be proposal jointly by both
of them. So the compliant letter distributed recently is not registered at the Secretariat.
The recent Secretariat meeting made a mistake, it should have asked for a joint
proposal. However, the PM has said that he would respond to the compliant and
the Secretariat allowed him to do so. All the leaders must remember the
provision in the party statute. Likewise, they must unconditionally take back
their blames made to the PM. After that, if there are any weaknesses, they
could be presented as the agenda in the Standing Committee meeting.
The proposal of Chairman Prachanda is
informal because it was never registered. Is it possible that the Prime
Minister's proposal will also remain undocumented?
It is up to the Secretariat to decide on this matter.
Who gave consent to the Prime Minister to furnish his replies? The paper
circulated by another Chair has not been registered and cannot be regarded as a
proposal. There is a hullabaloo over this paper. The paper is objectionable,
maybe for Chairman Prachanda himself. I don't know who is misleading him. I don't
think he wants to bring conflict into the party. It is doubtful if he wrote it
or somebody else did it for him.
Chairman Prachanda has said that he had
made sacrifices time and again but had faced humiliation. He had demanded it is
now the turn of the Prime Minister to make sacrifices?
Going back to insignificant details of the past is
not suitable for communist leaders. If the leaders of such high stature such as
ex-PM and ex-party chief resort to such nitpicking, how can they lead the
communist movement? This is a childish attitude.
Real sacrifice lies in the agreement and unity
between the two streams. A party that had secured 75 per cent popular votes has
offered too much share to a party that had secured 25 per cent of popular
votes. While one camp got President, the other got Vice President. Posts have
been equally divided. The PM has entrusted him to run the party and conduct the
general convention while taking full leadership of the government himself. He
has even said that he would not become party chair after the general
convention. He has pledged not to vie for premiership as well. Is he any
inferior in terms of sacrifice?
Is this problem the result of the
failure to manage the demands of ex-prime minister leaders of NCP?
In many countries, executive chiefs of the
government do not return to the post once they are out. Same is the case
regarding the party leadership. But we have the tradition of making returns
again and again. They compare things with their former role and make
complaints. Of course, nobody should face the deficit of honour and
recognition. Such dignitaries always deserve respect. There should be norms in
this regard. A rule had been formulated by the former CPN-UML on his matter.
Now the rules regarding the age bar of 70 year and the repetition in the post
of PM and party chief have been forgotten. By respecting this rule, it is
necessary to give the senior leaders the role of guardian and hand over the
executive roles to the new generation. This matter must be discussed in the
upcoming general convention.
Published in The Rising Nepal daily on 23 November 2020.
