KATHMANDU: The debate over party reorganization within the CPN-UML, which began after the party’s electoral setback on March 5, has now evolved into a broader leadership dispute.
A nearly 60-page report prepared after collecting nationwide suggestions on party restructuring has become the center of controversy. Differences have reportedly emerged between party chairman KP Sharma Oli and General Secretary Shankar Pokharel over the contents of the report.
The task force meeting scheduled to discuss the report has not been held, and uncertainty also surrounds the party secretariat meeting. Likewise, the proposed Central Committee meeting that was expected to take place in the last week of June has been delayed.
According to party sources, Oli is preparing to take the report directly to the Central Committee rather than having it endorsed by the task force and the Secretariat. Since he is considered to be in a minority within the Secretariat, he is reportedly seeking to secure support from a majority of Central Committee members and push the report through in his favor.
At the heart of the dispute are key questions about the future structure of the UML: whether only the chairman should step aside or whether all office-bearers should relinquish their positions, and how the party’s new leadership should be shaped. The report prepared in response to these questions has further intensified internal political tensions within the UML.
“I don’t want to read it”
The controversy deepened after the task force report reached Chairman Oli.
General Secretary Shankar Pokharel, who also serves as member secretary of the task force under the coordination of Vice Chairman Ram Bahadur Thapa “Badal,” had prepared the draft report. After collecting suggestions from across the country, Pokharel submitted the final draft to the task force coordinator, and a copy was subsequently delivered to Oli.
Earlier, the UML task force on party purification, strengthening, transformation, and reorganization had entrusted Badal and Pokharel with finalizing the report based on the suggestions received during the nationwide consultation campaign. Sources say Oli became dissatisfied after Badal briefed him on the main contents of the report. Tensions reportedly escalated further when Oli objected to the inclusion of proposals related to party reorganization.
Pokharel is said to have urged Oli to read the report, or at least review its key points. However, according to leaders familiar with the discussions, Oli showed little interest. “I don’t want it,” Oli reportedly said. “I don’t want to read anything. I don’t want any of it, and I will not read it.”
This exchange is now being interpreted as a significant indication of the growing distance between UML Chairman Oli and General Secretary Pokharel. The report in question was not an ordinary political document. It was prepared after collecting suggestions from across the country regarding the UML’s organization, leadership, working style, and future strategy following the party’s setback in the March 5 election.
Reorganization campaign after the election setback
After the UML failed to secure the results it had expected in the election, debate began within the party over self-review and organizational restructuring. The UML won only nine seats outright, and all office-bearers, including Chairman Oli, were defeated.
Amid this situation, a UML Secretariat meeting held on May 24 decided to form an Election Review and Party Reorganization Suggestions Task Force under the coordination of Vice-Chairman Ram Bahadur Thapa “Badal.” The task force was given one month to submit its report, and General Secretary Pokharel was appointed member secretary.
The task force traveled across the country and collected suggestions on the party’s condition, weaknesses exposed by the election, organizational problems, and possible measures for restructuring. The campaign began in Bagmati Province and gathered suggestions from all seven geographical provinces as well as non-geographical committees. It concluded after receiving feedback from party advisers. In total, the task force conducted consultation programs at 13 locations. The main conclusion emerging from these nationwide consultations was that the party requires comprehensive restructuring.
“I wrote the report one step ahead of your suggestions”
After being entrusted with drafting the report, Pokharel reportedly told leaders who met him that he had gone beyond the suggestions they had provided. “I have written a report one step ahead of what you said,” he is quoted as saying. “If this is implemented, party reorganization is possible.”
According to leaders familiar with the discussions, Pokharel argued that reorganization was necessary from the top of the party to the grassroots level. He also suggested that the current leadership structure alone would not be sufficient to guide the party under present circumstances. “The coordinator comrade and I may submit separate reports,” he reportedly said. “But I have written that reorganization is necessary from top to bottom, and that the party cannot be run in the current situation with this leadership alone.” From this point onward, many leaders began to view the report as a politically sensitive document for the UML leadership.
Leadership and generational transition debate
The report reportedly places leadership transfer and generational transition at the center of the debate. It argues that although reservation policies were introduced in the past to increase youth participation, they are no longer sufficient to address the aspirations of younger party members.
The document calls for a concrete plan to integrate three generations within the party and establish a systematic process for leadership development and transfer. As a result, the long-running internal debate over leadership succession and generational change has now been incorporated into a formal party document. For this reason, the report is being seen not merely as an election review, but as a political document closely linked to the future of the UML’s leadership and organizational structure.
Oli’s dissatisfaction and stalled discussions
Leaders close to Pokharel claim that Chairman Oli attempted to influence the report while it was being prepared. According to them, Pokharel has said that Oli tried to shape the suggestion-collection process through video conferences while the task force was conducting consultations at 13 different locations across the country. However, the dominant theme emerging from those consultations remained the need for party reorganization.
Believing that Oli was trying from the outset to make the report favorable to himself, Pokharel reportedly sought to reassure leaders by saying that he had prepared the report “one step ahead.” Meanwhile, task force coordinator Badal and General Secretary Pokharel prepared separate draft reports. The task force meeting assigned both leaders the responsibility of producing a final report incorporating suggestions received from across the country.
The plan was to discuss both drafts within the task force and then forward a final version to the Central Committee through the Secretariat. However, that process has since stalled and has not moved forward.
Differences emerge between Badal and Pokharel
Task force coordinator Ram Bahadur Thapa “Badal” is widely regarded as being close to UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli, while General Secretary Shankar Pokharel is said to favor advancing party reorganization through an institutional process. As a result, party leaders claim that two distinct approaches have emerged within the task force.
Pokharel is insisting that the report should first be discussed and approved by the task force and then forwarded to the Central Committee through the Secretariat. Badal, however, is reportedly in favor of taking the report directly to the Central Committee without prolonged discussions, a position that is seen as consistent with Chairman Oli’s line.
According to a task force member, Badal has shown little interest in holding a detailed discussion on the report within the task force and is now trying to exert pressure on Pokharel in line with Oli’s wishes. This has increased dissatisfaction among some task force members. Pokharel is also said to have complained that even meetings of the task force with leaders close to him were prevented following signals from Chairman Oli.
Pressure to halt the task force after Bishnu Poudel’s arrest?
Another development has reportedly become linked to the dispute. Sources claim that Pokharel told leaders close to him that Chairman Oli had pressured him to stop the task force’s work after the arrest of UML Vice Chairman Bishnu Poudel on July 4. After that, the relationship between the task force process and the party leadership is said to have become more complicated.
Despite this, the task force continued its work, collected suggestions from across the country, and prepared a draft report. However, the process of formally endorsing the report was halted at the final stage.
Gundu meeting fails to break the deadlock
Oli and Pokharel later met in Gundu during Shrawan, but the deadlock remained unresolved. Party leaders say Oli expressed dissatisfaction with what he considered a harsh report prepared by Pokharel, and that Badal subsequently stopped efforts to convene a task force meeting. No task force meeting has been held since then.
The two leaders also held further talks, but Oli is still reportedly unhappy with the report. As a result, the task force report has effectively been shelved following the dispute between the chairman and the general secretary.
Central Committee meeting remains uncertain
A UML Central Committee meeting had been scheduled for the fourth week of July. However, despite instructions that the chairman and general secretary should fix the date through consultation, the meeting has still not been held even after August began. Within the UML, many leaders are now saying that the dispute over the task force report is the main reason for the delay.
Pokharel continues to insist that the report should be endorsed by the task force and routed through the Secretariat before reaching the Central Committee. Oli, on the other hand, is reportedly preparing to make necessary changes to the report and present it directly to the Central Committee. What began as a procedural disagreement has now turned into a political dispute over leadership and authority.
Oli’s strategy: Face the Central Committee
Party leaders say Oli believes he is in a minority within the UML Secretariat. For that reason, he is said to have adopted a strategy of bypassing lengthy discussions in the Secretariat and the task force and taking the matter directly to the Central Committee.
Some leaders even claim that Oli has calculated that around 70 percent of Central Committee members are on his side. If that assessment is correct, Oli appears to want the political test of the report to take place in the Central Committee rather than in the Secretariat. Such a move could significantly reshape the balance of power within the UML.
Report raises concerns about the next election
The nearly 60-page report also reportedly carries a serious review of the UML’s future political trajectory. Pokharel is said to have concluded that the party will not be able to make a comeback in the next election unless there is a comprehensive restructuring of its organization, leadership formation, working style, and political activities.
This suggests that the report is not merely a review of the previous election but a proposal for changing the UML’s current leadership and organizational structure ahead of future elections. Leaders therefore believe that, if implemented, the report could bring significant changes in the party’s organizational framework, leadership style, and generational balance.
Oli’s parallel efforts to manage the internal crisis
Amid the growing tensions, Oli is also said to have tried to reorganize power within the party to manage the crisis developing in the Secretariat. He reportedly attempted to replace Koshi Chief Minister Hikmat Karki and, in Bagmati Province, sought to remove Jagannath Thapaliya from the position of parliamentary party leader and make Kiran Thapa chief minister. According to party sources, he failed in both attempts. Karki has reportedly taken the position that he will leave the post only if he decides to do so himself.
In Bagmati, the UML and NCP together do not command a sufficient majority, and support from the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) is also required. The RPP has formally decided not to participate in any effort to form a new government. Leaders say Oli’s campaign to identify those who do not support him within the Secretariat has not succeeded this time.
Where has the UML reorganization process stalled?
The UML reorganization task force has already completed the nationwide collection of suggestions. A draft report has been prepared. The procedure had also been agreed upon: the report would move from the task force to the Secretariat and then to the Central Committee. But the main obstacle now is not the report itself; it is the leadership’s willingness to accept it.
Critics allege that Chairman Oli wants to amend the report in a way that is favorable to him, while General Secretary Pokharel wants the report to be institutionalized through discussion and approval within the task force. Coordinator Badal is widely viewed as being aligned with Oli. As a result, the very task force created to drive party reorganization has itself become a center of power struggle within the UML.
Reorganization or continuation of the old structure?
For the UML, the current dispute is not simply about whether a report should be passed.
It is fundamentally about what lessons the party will draw from its electoral setback.
Will the leadership structure change?
Will a system be developed to bring a new generation into leadership?
Will the organization be restructured from the grassroots upward?
Or will the party enter the next election with the same structure and leadership as before?
Leaders warn that if the latter path is chosen, the UML could face even greater losses in upcoming local and provincial elections than it suffered in the federal election. The task force report appears to favor the first option: broad organizational and leadership restructuring.
However, Oli’s dissatisfaction and the fact that even a task force meeting has not been held suggest that the second option may currently have greater weight. For that reason, the biggest question within the UML is no longer simply what is written in the report. The real question is whether the report will be read, accepted, and implemented, or whether the party will return to its previous path.
The reorganization campaign that has continued for nearly two months has now become stuck on that very question. The UML’s future political direction, and possibly its long-term organizational future, is increasingly tied to how that question is resolved.
Comment