CPN (UML) Faces Institutional Conflict as Leaders Oppose Chairman Oli's 'Use and Throw' Policy

Kathmandu. Institutional conflict has begun in the CPN (UML). Due to Chairman KP Sharma Oli's 'use and throw' policy, many leaders who previously worked closely with him and supported him have stood in opposition after understanding his behavior and working style. As a result, Oli is becoming increasingly isolated within the party. Oli, who is in the minority in the secretariat, is now trying to show a majority in the central committee. However, leaders say that this effort of Oli may not be successful in the central committee meeting as well. Oli's 'Use and Throw' Policy: From Bamdev to Ishwar Pokharel According to UML leaders, Oli's tendency to adopt a 'use and throw' policy is not new, but dates back to 2070 BS. At that time, when Oli wanted to become the leader of the CPN (UML) parliamentary party, Bamdev Gautam was the leader who could challenge him in the party. Understanding this, Oli made an internal agreement with Gautam to become the leader of the party. 'I will become the leader of the party now, and you will become either the party chairman or the leader of the party in the upcoming national convention,' Oli told Gautam at that time. Gautam readily accepted Oli's proposal and supported him in becoming the leader of the party accordingly. Some time after Oli was elected leader of the party, the convention was held. At that time, Oli again told Gautam, 'I will become the chairman now, you wait, we will talk later.' Gautam also accepted Oli's words and continued to cooperate. When the Ninth General Convention of UML was to be held, Oli reached an agreement with another leader, Ishwar Pokharel. At that time, Ishwar Pokharel was also a contender for the chairmanship. Understanding this, Oli told Pokharel, 'I will become the chairman now, you can become the chairman in the Tenth General Convention, it doesn't matter.' Thus, Oli, who came to power with the support of Gautam and Pokharel, has since been engaged in weakening and ridiculing both leaders. 'After becoming chairman, he started weakening and marginalizing both Ishwar Pokharel and Gautam,' said one leader, 'Oli's behavior towards Madhav Nepal, Jhalanath Khanal, and Bidya Bhandari is already known to everyone.' Attempt to Pit Poudel and Pokharel Against Each Other and Their 'Surprise' Following the same policy, Oli recently tried to pit leaders Bishnu Poudel and Shankar Pokharel against each other. 'Recently, he started trying to pit Bishnu and Shankar against each other,' said a central committee member, 'not only by calling them separately and relaying one's words to the other, but it reached a point where the party itself was destroyed and pushed to the state of Janamorcha. Poudel and Pokharel understood this.' A secretariat member told Ratopati that Poudel and Pokharel were forced to stand against Oli only after understanding Oli's move. 'Many did not expect Poudel and Pokharel to go against Oli. Their going against him was like a 'surprise',' said the secretariat member, 'After understanding Oli's 'use and throw' strategy, they concluded that the party cannot be run by him anymore and both have come to the opposition camp.' As of the last secretariat meeting, only Vice-Chairman Ram Bahadur Thapa 'Badal' and Secretary Mahesh Basnet were seen supporting Oli in the 19-member UML secretariat. 'There is no other reason for the leaders to distance themselves from Oli; Oli's own behavior is the main reason,' said the leader, 'Institutional conflict has started in UML. The message of this conflict has spread across the country. Now, Oli has no option but to resign and make a dignified exit.' Pressure from Office Bearers for Oli to Pave the Way Chairman Oli's close aides and leaders who usually supported him were Vice-Chairman Bishnu Prasad Poudel and General Secretary Shankar Pokharel. Oli used to move forward with the support of these leaders in most of his steps and decisions. However, as time changed, Poudel and Pokharel also changed. That is, incorporating the feelings of the general UML leaders and cadres in favor of party restructuring and leadership transfer, they advised Oli to pave the way and remain as a respected guardian. Oli, of course, did not accept this suggestion from Poudel and Pokharel. Therefore, he is insisting on not relinquishing his post. Instead, Oli has adopted the strategy of handing over the decision-making responsibility to the central committee to see if a majority can be secured in the central committee. Due to Oli's stubbornness in not stepping down, not only did सवालजवाफ (questioning and answering) and नोकझोंक (banter) occur between the leaders in the UML Central Secretariat meeting that started on Friday, but the atmosphere of the meeting also became almost 'tense'. With Poudel and Pokharel, who previously supported Oli, standing on a separate side, it helped not only Gokarna Bista and Yogesh Bhattarai, who had been expressing different opinions, but also Lekhraj Bhatta and Raghuveer Mahaseth to raise their voices in favor of party transformation. As a result, Oli was clearly in the minority in the 19-member secretariat meeting. With only Ram Bahadur Thapa and Mahesh Basnet openly defending Oli, the majority of members sought an alternative leadership. This became an extremely unpleasant political event for Oli. It has simultaneously exposed the status quo within UML and the demand for leadership change. Oli's Insistence on Not Relinquishing Leadership and Escalating Debate Even though most office bearers pointed out the need for party restructuring, transformation, and generational change in the meeting held to review the February 21 elections and distribute work to leaders, Chairman Oli did not show any hesitation in his stance. Instead, he lectured the leaders that he would not give up leadership under any circumstances and that there was no need to persuade him. Four out of UML's five vice-chairmen, Bishnu Poudel, Raghu ji Pant, Prithvi Subba Gurung, and Gokarna Bisht, as well as General Secretary Shankar Pokharel, Deputy General Secretary Yogesh Bhattarai, and 8 out of nine secretaries, directly or indirectly urged the chairman to pave the way. Citing the Janajeevan movement and the defeat in the elections, most leaders clearly stated the need to restructure the party and move forward. Even General Secretary Pokharel, considered Oli's close confidant, suggested that the voice for restructuring within the party is loud and cannot be ignored, and that change must be embraced, which was unexpected for Oli. Although leaders were allowed to speak freely in the ongoing meeting, Oli gave no indication of relinquishing leadership. Despite distancing himself from his own trusted leaders, he has not budged from his previous stance. Leaders say that Oli's such stance has further intensified the debate on restructuring and generational change within UML. However, CPN (UML) Deputy General Secretary Lekhraj Bhatta claims that the issues raised in the meeting have been exaggerated. Regarding Oli's resignation and paving the way after Saturday's meeting, he said, 'Many things from past meetings have come out in an exaggerated manner. I come from a certain schooling, and various tendencies and ideas emerge in meetings. However, one should not speak outside the party's main line.' While leaders have their own interpretations and analyses, there is no doubt that the dispute within UML, which suffered a major setback in the elections, has intensified. Rather, the debate on restructuring has raised more serious questions about leadership style, organizational structure, and strategy. UML's younger generation has expressed disgust with the old leadership. It is no longer easy for Oli to ignore or suppress the collective stance of most office bearers who understand the voice of the cadres. Some leaders believe that if Oli still considers himself an 'indispensable' leader of the party, a more organized 'anti-Oli' faction may emerge within the party, forcing them to remove him. However, these leaders are still in favor of bidding farewell to Oli respectfully, believing it to be in the party's interest. Leaders say that if Oli shows the foresight to listen to his own colleagues and pave the way at the appropriate time, the party's lost prestige can be restored and it can reach new heights. However, on the other hand, there is concern in UML circles that if Oli, who has distanced himself from his own people and is increasingly in the minority in the party committee, remains stubborn, the party unity will weaken further.