The ongoing intra-party conflict in the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) has drawn everyone’s attention of late.
The NCP conflict has two aspects: Firstly, the internal issue related to the party functioning, and secondly, the issue related to the performance of the NCP-led government.
Concerns about blame-game politics with terminologies such as fraud or deceit within the NCP is purely its internal affairs, and had nothing to do with others.
Furthermore, the surreptitious agreement between the NCP Chairmen, or any formal and informal agreements, too, are NCP’s internal concerns.
The same goes with the disputes such as creating rooms for factionalism, conspiracy theories, among others are issues that the NCP leaders need to settle on their own.
The ideological differences, the conflict originated from the various interests of the party leaders are normal in a political party.
The constant dialogue and discussion on the issues pave room for resolution and move the party ahead. However, had it been so, or had it been merely the issue between two party chairmen, we would only have a good fortune wish for them.
These issues are the issues of public concern, both the accuser and the accused, along with the party they lead, should answer it transparently and convincingly to the public.
However, the disputes within the NCP are not confined within the party or cannot be dubbed as party’s internal issues only related to its leaders or cadres since its Executive Chairman has already unveiled all weaknesses through his political document that he floated for discussion during last Friday’s Secretariat meeting.
What has to be noted with emphasis is that the proposal consists of some grave allegations against the PM KP Oli-led government.
The points, basically, put forth by Prachanda saying “irresponsible conduct in government’s functioning” are not internal issues of NCP but are the issues of public concern.
NCP Chairman Puspa Kamal Dahal has alleged PM Oli or rather has come out with the findings that KP Oli, though elected as the Prime Minister from the NCP’s parliamentary party, has run the government by ignoring the spirit of good governance.
Instead of making substantive efforts against corruption, malpractice, adultery and commission fraud, wide Body procurement scam, printing press procurement and the Communication Minister’s tape scandal, the un-transparent and suspicious transactions with Yeti Holdings, the unholy nexus with Omni Group especially in the procurement of health material procurement, and committing irregularity by leaking the confidential information like the change of tax rate in electric vehicle and chocolate import, PM Oli defended and protected those involved in such activities.
NCP Chairman Prachanda even cited all these anomalies in his political report submitted in the Secretariat for discussion.
Prachanda further mentioned that instead of reiterating the need to address the coronavirus pandemic with the spirit of national unity, PM Oli not only generated political dispute by paving room for party split and power game but nullified the state mechanisms meant for disaster management.
In his political document, Prachanda also claimed that PM Oli proved too weak and inefficient in the issues related to nationalism, foreign affairs and diplomatic deals causing big damage to the country’s independent policy.
He has criticized Oli for cashing the conflict-era litigation against former Maoists for political benefit.
Prachanda concludes that PM Oli has turned a total failure as a Prime Minister in the last two years.
These allegations Dahal made against Oli are not new; they are the issues raised in the parliament and the street alike.
Yet, this incident bears special significance as former Prime Ministers from NCP not only labeled Oli as invalid as a PM but also have raised a question on the incumbent PM’s intent about the attitude and intention on the issues of operation of the government and good governance.
This is sensitive. After Prachanda’s allegation, it is learned that the PM has been using all efforts irrespective of the dignity of his post, diplomatic ethics and international dignity to woo former PM and NCP Chairman Prachanda.
Regarding the disputes and differences about the functioning of the party, it’s all up to the NCP cadres to decide who should self-evaluate or self-criticize or even sacrifice.
We can only extend our best wishes to NCP leaders and cadres that they succeed in resolving the dispute.
Therefore, let it be clear that the issues raised in the proposal are not merely the conflicting opinions of competing two ‘pilots’ of NCP, rather they are the issues of public concern, and in that regard, they are our issues as well.
However, the NCP Chairman’s findings on PM Oli-led government’s irregularities, corruption, protection to criminals, bad governance are no more the issues to be settled through the alleged’s self-criticism or agreement or withdrawal of the proposal. They are now, the issues of public interest.
Such issues cannot be cleansed by making any agreements or cannot be forgotten at someone’s will.
These issues are the issues of public concern, both the accuser and the accused, along with the party they lead, should answer it transparently and convincingly to the public.
Not only this, the PM and the NCP should justify the PM’s ‘confidential’ meeting with the RAW Chief of the neighboring country and the NCP leader’s unusual meetings with the Chinese ambassador amid the power struggle and conflict in the ruling NCP.
At least the responsible main opposition party will not overlook or ignore such issues as the expressions originated from the power struggle in the ruling party.
Therefore, let it be clear that the issues raised in the proposal are not merely the conflicting opinions of competing two ‘pilots’ of NCP, rather they are the issues of public concern, and in that regard, they are our issues as well.
The wooer and the prospective ‘wooed’ should be clear about it.
Whether the accuser and the accused woo each other or someone else come to facilitate the resolution be prepared to answer the allegations made in the proposal as we will seek a detailed account of those issues both from the parliament and the street.
(A translated version from Thapa’s opinion)
Comment