After the secretariat meeting of CPN-UML removed former vice-president Bhim Rawal as an organized member and the standing committee member Vinda Pandey and central member Ushakiran Timsina were freed from their duties for 6 months, the internal strife of this party has become a topic of discussion and debate everywhere.

While the UML leadership has defended the decision, it is being criticized in the general circle. The UML line says that action has been taken because they have demonstrated chaos and indiscipline against the interests of the party. But it is understood by the general public that when criticizing and questioning the leadership, President KP Sharma has fallen under the wrath of Oli's arbitrariness.  As for the

, these leaders criticized the construction of the office by donating land from the controversial businessman Meen Bahadur Gurung. After criticizing it publicly, the party asked for a written explanation.

Rawal did not clarify but Pandey and Timsina clarified with their disagreement. However, the secretariat meeting took action saying that he spoke outside the rules and procedures and made statements that would weaken the party.  Ghanshyam Bhusal, General Secretary of CPN United Socialist Party, has expressed his sympathy towards his former comrades 'comrades' while many criticisms are going on for and against the

action. He asked Rawal to come to his party, stating that there is infighting within the mother party UML. Speaking at a program on Saturday, he claimed that the party will remain in turmoil as long as Oli remains in the leadership of UML and suggested Oli to step down from the party leadership. 

Will Oli, who received sharp criticism from Bhusal when he was in the UML in the past, accept these suggestions? Doubts arise. However, some other questions definitely arise after his statement. which needs further discussion. 

Is it only within the UML that the Ukusmukus and Chattapi? Are other communist elements at ease? Is CPN S free from fraud? And, the Maoists? Is Oli the only factor in Nepali left-wing politics that is on the decline? Or is the Oli trend elsewhere?

In reality, the entire communist politics of Nepal is in turmoil, in crisis. Communists are divided into factions, pride and ego. The appeal and trust of the past is waning. As the leadership of the communist component is being transformed into faction-oriented, power-oriented, self-centered and elite class, they have left their political ground.

His sign with the public is breaking. As a result, communist politics has reached a state of crisis. In this situation, where will the future of communist politics with strong public opinion in Nepali society go? What can be the result of the suddenness seen in the left circle? Will the communists fight among themselves or will they rise again?

Discussions based on these questions are more relevant now. Before finding a way out of the communist crisis, let us see the nature of the crisis and challenges of the left politics.

Let's go back to UML at the beginning. 

It is felt that the ruling UML is raising the 'ghost of Stalin' by climbing the ladder of the Congress. UMLs are beginning to see questions and criticism as conspiracies and propaganda. The trend of not being able to run the government according to people's expectations, using party power through a single high command and seeing conspiracy and bad propaganda when questioned about it is not democratic. 

In particular, UML emerged from democratic transformation. The fifth congress of this party held in 2049 was a historic turning point in its political life, from which a communist party was born into democracy. The political rise of this party was under the leadership of the simple and honest leader Manmohan Adhikari and the clear ideological leader Madan Bhandari.

The history of fighting against autocracy and the change of 2046, the attraction of Nepali society towards UML has increased after coming into competitive politics by accepting open discussion. In the beginning, it was able to establish itself as a national political power through some hard work in 9 months through a minority government in 2051. 

However, in the following days, the politics of this party is getting weaker as it gets involved in the power game. Big in size, this party. Even now, it is the second largest party in the country and the leading party among the communists. However, there is neither the simplicity and integrity of a leader as in the past, nor is there a leader who can understand the ideological/political direction. The current UML has a stubborn Oli.

Therefore, he can give a commanding expression to the worker line without looking for their options. Recently, a workshop held by the organization department of UML decided to counter the propaganda against the leadership.

While Amaljan was vowing to save Oli by holding a national workshop, Oli was instructing the workers not to look for leadership options until he died. Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel was approving of Oli's aspirations by saying that no one will stand against Oli in the eleventh Congress.

As Bhusal said, UML leaders/activists are either enemies of Oli, or servants. There is even more of a bet to be a servant. That obscene display is displayed in the devotion seen on the social media of those who are knocking on doors in search of roles within the party and various opportunities in the government. When the leaders who are capable of reaching the future leadership are also involved in such a show, the tendency of questioning in this party has not only been discouraged, but the critical consciousness is also decreasing. 

Communists use many 'jargons' to denigrate political enemies. However, UML is not at risk from feudalism, broker-bureaucratic bourgeoisie, imperialism, expansionism, etc. Injured by power-induced opportunism and Oli's power frenzy, UML has grown on the path of collapse due to 'domestic enemies'.

Let's talk about the CPN Maoist Center. 

The Maoists are somewhat excited that they have been 'revived' after the recently concluded by-elections. Prachanda is a little more excited. He seems to be in self-confidence. He is saying, "Maoists and Prachanda are applauded wherever they go." However, this party, which was born to do politics, has severed its relationship with the grassroots.

The extent to which the state of internal democracy is deteriorating within the party can be gleaned from the expressions expressed by Janardhan Sharma from time to time. Recently, he said in a program, "Mao also respected the minority." He said to let hundreds of flowers bloom, the Communists of Nepal should learn from Mao.' Some time ago, Sharma had submitted a written proposal in the standing committee meeting and requested Prachanda to transfer the leadership. By using factions and leaders within the party, Mahir Prachanda has been able to manage the dissatisfaction towards him and the demand for leadership change for the time being. However, the Maoists are also doomed to be governed by Prachanda's almost four decades of 'rule'. 

Now about Ghanshyam Bhusal's party. After 6 months of the convention, CPN-S was able to divide the work. Even that division of labor could not give 'right responsibilities to the right people'. Bhusal innocently accepted the division of labor before the chairman.

As he assumed the position obtained from the agreement at the convention. He came to the convention with a call for a change of leadership, but he did not dare to compete for the leadership at the last moment and got the position by agreement. In other words, Bhusal himself is not free from left ukusamukus. In the document titled 'Party Building from Movement' presented by him in the recent meeting, those rumors have been scattered.  As a

, he wrote in one place, "Nowadays there are many kinds of problems in the party, tendencies like frustration, desperation, confusion, flight, passivity have been seen. As a result, some of them are trying to get closer to the CPN-UML, while others are trying to get closer to the CPN-Maoist. There are some common reasons for the confusion among these communists who are accustomed to

parliamentary politics. First, these parties have grown up with issues of class interest. . Brokers, bureaucrats, capitalists, feudalists, etc., they have made class enemies. However, in practice, the "owners" of the communists are the middlemen and the bourgeoisie. Communists take the guise of mediators when merging parties or building power coalitions.

Second, they are ready to make any compromise for power. Why do you agree with the Congress, what issues do you agree with and what do you disagree with? No clarification needed. In terms of coming to power, whether it is the Congress, whether it is the communists, whether it is the right-wing party, they are ready to join hands with anyone. As a result, the ideological decay of the communists is taking place. 

Thirdly, the communists talk about growing by developing a collective leadership system, but it is found that the individual is the boss in behavior and work style. As a result, internal democracy is limited to formal speech. How is it possible to develop a democratic character in the party when the decisive power of the party is factional and personal?

A fourth reason why communist parties are headed for crisis is the growing opacity within these parties. Office management, construction is not transparent. Financial discipline and management are under the control of the main leadership. To some extent, even the secretariat members know what the office builders will do only after the meeting starts and decisions are made without necessary discussion. Hence, another factor in the crisis is the rampant left party with misgovernance, corruption and opacity.

Left politics is in confusion for many reasons like Bhusal said. The future of this party, which is led by characters who have been tested time and time again, does not look good. Options will be limited. A question often arises regarding the future of political parties as the inconsistency in politics increases, is it sustainable or real? This debate that takes place in the Congress from time to time has become more necessary for the Left Party. It is too late for serious self-examination by UML, Maoist, S and other communist components on this question.

Three options need to be discussed in these parties now. First, it should be established that the leadership should be elected based on political policies and programs. The leader is not assigned responsibility in terms of management, but based on the ability and the programs that he has.

It is difficult to build public trust in tried and tested leaders at the top level, so a budding leader/activist should be able to handle the issue of leadership change and handover. Who wants to give up the reins of power when they're getting along? Therefore, rather than sitting around waiting for a top leader to leave, leadership transition and transition initiatives require the leadership of a second and new generation.

Second, the life of anyone who wants to work in the public sphere should be morally, economically, and socially transparent. Communists advocate a simple life, but their lives tend to be opaque and luxurious. Communists should be able to give up the trend of 'eating ghee under a blanket' and make their lives transparent to regain the trust and attraction of the people.

Communists used to wear clothes decided by the party in the past. Now the watch worth crores is on his wrist. The use of necessary resources and means has become mandatory. However, the use of such daily luxuries or necessary materials should be transparent. At least its source should be clear.