Kathmandu: The UML as a party is in trouble.

The source of the trouble is the impending 7th general convention to be held in Janakpur shortly and the would-be personalities who would man a UML emerging out of the said convention.

Indications are that the Janakpur convention would not only be challenging for those who wish to come to the apex body of the party but would also be pretty difficult for those as well who possess strong desire to retain their current posts even in the next new set-up.

In the process, both of the lobbies, the ones wishing to capture the apex body and the other camp which wishes to retain their command in the party as usual, have become vocal in their speeches and interviews. In the process, the newspapers affiliated to the party itself appear divided on various lobby-lines apparently hinting that they too were divided on the issue.

One party, one ideology, one target but yet various diametrically opposed views have started emanating from the UML quarters and that too at time of the general convention that does amply reflect that the party is boiling from within.

When and how the boiling point will exceed its limits will have to be watched.

Nevertheless, what becomes visibly clear is that K. P. Sharma Woli and Madhav Nepal are on a direct confrontation mood.

The bone of contention is: the UML should have democratic functioning in its proceedings or should adopt an “authoritarian” style of functioning?

Clearly, when such questions surface in a dogmatic party like the UML, one is forced to conclude that there were two sets of thinking prevalent in the UML. The first set obviously wished or needed “more democracy” in the functioning of the party whose corollary could be derived as that the UML till to day were being ruled in an authoritarian manner by those who were at the high command.

The second set obviously wished to continue the functioning of the party in a “closed” manner wherein “ideas” and “opinions” are imposed from “above”. Read the high command.

This ultimately means that the two sets, one for greater democracy and the other for imposing from above, were in the forefront and that the convention in Janakpur will expose both who represent the two sets respectively.

Look at what K.P.Sharma Woli has to say in a vernacular Left weekly supposedly a mouth-piece of the UML party itself.

“Those who were at the helm of affairs of the party, wish centralised authority, and those who aork being at the grass-roots level wish people’s democracy”.

Analysing what Woli says what comes to the fore is that Woli represents those who wish greater transparency and thus democracy in the party whereas those who are seated at the top of the party prefer centralization of the power.

This if further analysed brings to the fore the hidden factv that Woli as one of the leaders of the UML is not happy with what is going on in the party which he claims to be close to be a system wherein ideas and opinions were imposed from above to the grass-roots. This again means that Woli represents that section in the UML which wishes that their voices too be heard by the high command and not just the otherwise.

Madhav Nepal and his cohorts prefer a status quo in the functioning of the party machinery which mean that this lobby would wish the supremacy of the General Secretary, read Madhav Nepal, even in the next set up.

Bam Dev Gautam is the one who fortunately comes to the rescue of Mr. Woli who of late has remained vocal in demanding what Woli has been saying since long.

All in all, the fight is on in between those who champion greater democracy and those who prefer the centralised leadership.

The Janakpur convention will definitely be more than interesting to watch and analyse.

Yet another issue that has widened their rift is the post of the chairman of the party.

The Woli faction wishes that the post of the chairman be brought into effect. The other camp opposes for obvious reasons. Woli maintains that if the party does not wish to have a chairman, then what is the rationale behind keeping the post vacant?

Madhav Nepal and his lobby have yet to answer this question. Here lies the significance of the post. Clearly, the Woli faction is eyeing the post of the chairman in order to act like a check and balance should the GS of the party exceeded its functions and exhibited authoritarian attitudes in its functioning.

This also hints that the Woli faction too remains confident that the GS post will some how or the other again go to Madhav Nepal and hence their wish is to cut the size of the new GS through the use of the post of the chairman.

However, the tragedy is that Madhav Nepal and his lobby strongly oppose the idea of having a chairman for the party.

To recall, after the demise of Man Mohan Adhikari, this post remains vacant.