In a new exercise the central committee meeting of CPN-UML prohibited central members from commenting on the political report submitted by Chairman KP Sharma Oli.
Oli’s political report was presented on the first day of the two-day meeting on Wednesday after inaugural address while General Secretary Shankar Pokharel presented organization report. The first day ended with Oli addressing the meeting after provincial chairs completed their reporting.
Central members are allowed to comment on the report submitted by the party chair on the second day of any communist party’s meeting. But UML did not allow them to comment on the report this time.
This may have been done deeming why others should speak when the chairman’s report is all important, a central member quipped sarcastically.
The meeting endorsed standard for candidates for local election and procedure for picking the candidates on the second day and formed a committee to draft election manifesto before ending again with Oli’s address.
The party ruled that central members could only provide written suggestion if they had any comment to make and no one dared to demand they be allowed to speak about the report. “The yesteryear’s practice in UML was registering one’s name to discuss about the political report. Groups would be made deeming that it would take more time if a large number of members were to speak. A new practice of providing written suggestion has started this time,” another central member stated requesting anonymity.
“This has weakened debate inside the party. Central members would relay the state at the grassroots while speaking for 5-7 minutes. They could even display their capacity and would be evaluated by the party accordingly. One can even question trainers during the training. This was simply a meeting. Just that.”
Yet another central member accused that central members have been made a flock of sheep by prohibiting them from speaking. “There was sermon in the meeting, a moment of silence was observed and endorsed (sic). There would be no chance of listening to others at a place where there is majority of those with immense faith on the leadership,” the member added. “They may feel that the king can do no wrong. Another thing, one cannot expect much from the meeting of those who concur with KP Oli.”
Politburo member Gulab Jung Shah, meanwhile, said it was not possible to discuss all the issues as the secretariat set the agenda and it came through the politburo meeting. “The number of central committee members is big. You can estimate the time it would take if everyone were to speak 5-10 minutes each. This meeting was focused on local election. Provincial chiefs have represented us,” he said. “The meeting was completed with agility and in a wonderful manner. This is also a kind of training. Ghanashyam Bhusal and others talked about left unification but 99 percent of members agree that that is not possible.”
Central member Usha Kiran Timalsina stated that discussion could not be held at a level that is necessary in party meeting. “We can always listen to chairman’s speech. Central committee meeting is also an opportunity for interaction between central members and big leaders. But that was ignored,” she rued.
Pointing that central members cannot speak in other meetings if not in central committee meetings she asked why distance was created between the chairman and central members.
Another central member Rachana Khadka conceded that it was impossible for everyone to speak considering the large number of central members and the impending local election. But she pointed that the leadership should listen to the suggestions of central members and added that review of party activities could not take place at the level it should be done in a meeting.
Another central member Ganesh Pahadi said this meeting was focused more on implementation of instructions than holding discussion and implementing that. He argued that it was difficult to extend the meeting at the time of election.
