The return of former president Bidya Devi Bhandari has intensified polarization within the CPN-UML.
The 54th secretariat meeting held at the central office in Chyasal on Thursday, lasting over 10 hours, turned into a heated debate.
It is natural that Bhandari’s announcement of returning to active UML politics would impact nearly all party committees. Given that the secretariat is an executive-level committee, clear divisions emerged during the meeting.
According to one office-bearer, at the start of Thursday’s meeting, Chairman KP Sharma Oli expressed the view that former president Bhandari should be barred from rejoining party politics.
“It is wrong for a person who has served as president or former president to say they will return to party politics. This is not just about the party but also about our system,” the office-bearer quoted Chairman Oli as saying. “When someone assumes the highest office in the country, they do so with the understanding that they won’t return to party politics. If they return to politics, what dignity remains for that position?”
After Chairman Oli made these remarks, Senior Vice-chairman Ishwar Pokharel and Vice-chairmen Surendra Pandey and Yuvaraj Gyawali countered his stance.
“If a person who has served as president isn’t allowed to return to the party, that rule should have been established in 2015 when she was elected to that post. It’s not fair to debate rules now after she’s announced her return. Instead, we should discuss with her and decide what role she should be given,” a member quoted the office-bearers as saying.
As the secretariat members began to split over his remarks, sensing the mood, Oli deferred the matter, saying discussions would be held after the politburo and central committee meetings.
According to another office-bearer, Oli and Pokharel had a direct confrontation during the meeting. Pokharel even accused Oli of imposing authoritarianism in the party and presenting himself as indispensable while undermining other members.
Pokharel raised the issue of three different party statutes being printed after the first statute convention. He pointed out that the provision barring candidates from contesting executive positions, including the chairman, for more than two consecutive terms had been passed by the first statute convention and endorsed by the tenth general convention as well, but was removed when the statute was printed after the general convention.
Oli then retorted sharply, according to a leader present at the meeting: “Are you speaking for Karna Thapa? Where were three statutes printed? Didn’t the tenth general convention amend the statute? Wasn’t it decided in the meeting held before the general convention? Don’t you know this much?”
Pokharel responded, “Why would I speak for someone else? Does a person of my stature need to be someone’s spokesperson? Don’t I have my own judgment? Can’t I use my discretion? It’s a fact that three statutes were printed. The convention documents, which are preserved, confirm this.”
Pokharel didn’t stop there. According to office-bearers, he told Oli during the meeting, “You must now step down as chairman. You claim there’s no alternative to you, that the party and country can’t function without you. What kind of talk is that? Your working style is the same. You claim your evaluation is 100 percent correct while others’ evaluations don’t even matter. Is an individual’s evaluation paramount in the party? Is everything they do right? Is there no system, no rule for evaluation? There is collective evaluation too. Does whatever one person thinks become the party’s decision?”
Pokharel raised serious questions about the chairman’s working style, pointing out that the problem lay in his understading of party democratization.
“If there’s criticism or self-criticism in a meeting, you call it a fight. When discussions happen on issues, are they only personal? There’s also policy review! Should we call that a fight?'" he questioned.
Pokharel also strongly opposed the proposal to remove the age limit of 70 years and the restriction on serving more than two terms as chairman.
He cited history, recalling that since the seventh general convention, Chairman Oli himself had proposed democratization of the party, and argued that the same should be continued now.
“You started this in the seventh general convention. Later, in the eighth, a task force was formed. I was a member. You were its coordinator. Or was it only brought to remove Madhav Nepal? You should say that it shouldn’t be kept once he was removed. You should say that you brought it only because you needed it to go to the government,” Pokharel said in his characteristic style.
After that, Oli softened somewhat. Oli reportedly responded, “I had already understood your point.”
Senior Vice-chairman Pokharel, Vice-chairs Surendra Pandey, Yuvaraj Gyawali, and Ashtalaxmi Shakya stood in favor of keeping the age limit of 70 years and a two-term limit.
Vice-chairman Ram Bahadur Thapa held the view that party democratization would happen only through elections and that there should be no age or term limits.
Vice-chairman Pandey argued that Chairman Oli should remain honest to the party democratization laws and vision he had previously advanced.
“Even in the Congress, there’s a two-term limit. Countries with mature democracies like America have this provision. Only this will establish a system,” he said.
Vice-chairman Guru Baral also supported the 70-year age limit and two-term restriction for the chairman. However, one leader said his arguments lacked strong reasoning.
Secretaries Chhabilal Bishwakarma, Padma Aryal, and Raghubir Mahaseth occasionally intervened to express their views. They did not speak in a way that strengthened the establishment faction’s arguments.
Secretary Yogesh Bhattarai spoke cautiously, saying, “I hope no action will be taken for speaking here.”
He argued that the pillars of party democracy were age and term limits and that removing them would require strong justification.
Additionally, he criticized factionalism in the chairman’s name. He questioned the trend of using the chairman’s name in conventions of provinces, districts, and public organizations, creating a culture of sycophancy where leaders present themselves as candidates for party chairman.
During the meeting, which started at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday and lasted until nearly midnight, the secretariat agreed to not impose age or term limits. It also finalized a proposal to have 15 office-bearers and a 251-member central committee. Similarly, it decided that members of the general convention organizing committee need not be elected based on geography and should automatically become representatives.
However, intense debates and differences of opinion arose over this. Some members even prepared to register a "note of dissent" on the fundamental basis of party democratization. However, an office-bearer said that the chairman’s faction requested them not to do so, arguing it would not send a good message.
“Now a unanimous decision is being publicized. The reality is different. Yesterday’s decisions were the secretariat’s proposals. The chairman himself asked that they be called the secretariat’s proposals. The establishment faction, including the chairman, pleaded not to file a note of dissent. After that, Vice-chairman Yuvaraj Gyawali said it couldn’t be called unanimous, so they agreed to not label it as such,'" one office-bearer claimed.
We also asked Deputy General Secretary Pradeep Gyawali about the discussions in the meeting.
He said Senior Vice-chairman Pokharel had raised the issue of party democratization.
“He said that Chairman KP Sharma Oli should stand by the party democratization process he had previously advanced and continue it,” Gyawali said. “However, the meeting concluded that the question of party democratization is not just about age and term limits, but also about the overall direction of the communist movement, the policies, ideas, and perspectives the party has advanced.'"
He added that the secretariat meeting’s proposals—removing the 70-year age limit and term restrictions, keeping 15 office-bearers, and maintaining a 251-member central committee—were consensus-based.
On Friday morning, UML General Secretary Shankar Pokharel said that the confusion over statute formulation had ended.
"'The confusion over statute formulation has ended. A strong leadership and a united party were necessary for Mission 2084. That has been ensured,'" General Secretary Pokharel posted on Facebook.
The UML’s politburo meeting is taking place on Friday.
Thursday’s secretariat meeting passed proposals to remove the 70-year age limit and term restrictions, keep 15 office-bearers, and keep a 251-member central committee.
