UML’s strategy to silence internal critics: Disciplinary action against leaders

KATHMANDU: The CPN-UML has adopted a strategy of silencing internal critics and those questioning the leadership through disciplinary measures.

The recent actions against three central leaders reflect the party’s move to curb dissent and set an example for others.

The party expelled former Vice Chair Bhim Rawal from organizational membership and suspended Standing Committee member Binda Pandey and Central Committee member Usha Kiran Timilsina from their responsibilities for six months.

Analysts believe this reflects the leadership’s authoritarian tendencies and its inability to tolerate criticism.

The Controversy: Land Donation from Bhattarai’s Owner

At the heart of the internal dispute lies a contentious decision to accept a land donation worth approximately Rs 1 billion from Min Bahadur Gurung, the owner of the Bhatbhateni supermarket.

Gurung has been convicted of tax evasion and is under investigation for money laundering. Leaders Bhim Rawal, Binda Pandey, and Usha Kiran Timilsina opposed the decision, deeming it inappropriate to accept a donation from such a controversial figure.

The party labeled their criticism and public remarks as “disciplinary violations” and took action against them. UML leadership described the issue as a matter of “factionalism and internal dissent.”

Bhim Rawal Expelled

Former Vice Chair Bhim Rawal had long been critical of the party leadership. After contesting the chairmanship against KP Sharma Oli during the 10th General Convention in Chitwan, Rawal distanced himself from the party’s activities and refused subsequent roles, such as being made a central advisor.

In recent months, Rawal openly criticized the leadership and policies, prompting the party’s secretariat to seek an explanation from him on Oct 22. Rawal dismissed the notice as baseless and refused to respond. The party subsequently expelled him, citing “activities that weakened the party.”

Rawal denounced the decision, calling it a reflection of Oli’s “autocratic leadership.” He remarked, “This is not a party decision; it is primarily Oli’s autocratic style. I fought against injustice and for national interest while he bowed to foreign powers.”

Binda Pandey and Usha Kiran Timilsina Suspended

Standing Committee member Binda Pandey and Central Committee member Usha Kiran Timilsina faced suspension for publicly opposing the land donation decision. Despite responding to the party’s inquiries, their failure to issue “self-criticism” led to their suspension for six months.

Pandey argued that her actions were in the party’s best interest and that the decision to suspend her would harm the party rather than strengthen it. “This kind of approach raises questions about achieving UML’s goal of becoming a decisive national force by 2084,” she remarked.

Similarly, Timilsina criticized the action as a reflection of a “panchayat-style” governance within the party. She stated, “The leadership fought against the panchayat system, but now they are mimicking it.”

Leadership’s Authoritarian Tendencies

Political analysts view these developments as evidence of declining internal democracy within the UML. According to analyst Krishna Pokharel, Rawal’s expulsion signals the erosion of members’ rights to hold differing opinions. “While Rawal was not a winning candidate, his candidacy against Oli at the General Convention demonstrated internal democracy. Now, that same dissent is treated as a crime,” Pokharel noted.

Oli’s Leadership Model: Inspired by China?

KP Oli’s leadership style has drawn comparisons to the Chinese Communist Party’s approach, characterized by strict discipline and unity around the leadership. Oli has publicly praised China’s system, stating, “In a party with over 90 million members, no dissent emerges, and everyone rallies around the leadership.”

While UML aims to position itself as a decisive national force by the 2084 elections, its approach to stifling dissent raises concerns about its long-term stability. Analysts suggest that silencing criticism could harm the party’s energy and morale, urging the leadership to prioritize dialogue and coordination over suppression.

The Way Forward

The UML’s recent actions highlight a critical juncture for the party. Whether it chooses to embrace internal democracy or continue down the path of authoritarianism will determine its future strength and credibility. Analysts emphasize that fostering dialogue and unity is essential for the party’s growth and long-term success.