Some people think that the party is the private company of the leader. The members are his relatives and the citizens are silent spectators. They feel that whatever happens in the party is their internal matter. It is pointless for outsiders to investigate, discuss and criticize the decisions made in any party.

 That's why they say - 'Why chat in other people's house?' Let's not think that it is unnatural for ordinary people to feel this way. Because that is what our politics says. That is what was taught. Party members are also not to blame for this, because that is the training given by the leaders. But when the leaders who fought for democracy (?) think so, it is surprising. 

It is even more surprising when legislators and the intellectual community also think in this way. What is that? Here, let me give an explanation at the beginning - 'In a democracy, it is undemocratic, narrow and arrogant to consider party matters as internal matters. It is shameful to think like this in an open, liberal, civilized and democratic society.' 

Recently, when UML (allegedly) disciplined Bhim Rawal, Binda Pandey and Ushakiran Timsena, this question came up for discussion once again. People said - 'Is there such a democratic party that cannot ask questions? UML has become undemocratic and autocratic.' This incident caused serious criticism on UML in public circles. Comrade KP Oli was criticized along with UML.

People said – 'UML respected internal democracy and democracy. This party became narrow, ruthless and autocratic. UML leadership became Stalinist.' But UML did not accept the public comments. On the contrary, dismissing the questions and criticisms on them, the leaders said - 'This is a private matter of UML. Whatever UML does, what does it mean to others? Some leaders even said that outsiders have no right to comment on UML's internal affairs. Our workers have silently accepted the party decision, what does it mean to others? If you want to comment on UML, first come as UML, and then speak.' Is the decision made by UML an internal matter of UML? Or, should the public not have the right to criticize, question and comment on the decisions made by the parties? As said above, should the UML be the one to criticize the UML? Or should the Congress and Maoists be the ones to criticize the Congress and the Maoists? Surprisingly, even a new party like RSVP does not seem to accept the criticism.

They also think that all those who criticize their party are either opponents, or they are making unnecessary noise. Is that the case? Not so worth it. If anyone thinks like that, it is anti-democratic, rude and irresponsible thinking. Because, these days, political parties are not the private affairs of leaders (or members). These are matters of public concern. And, citizens have the right to question, criticize and comment on the internal or external decisions made by them. 

Citizens therefore have the right to publicly question internal party decisions, because parties are matters of public concern. These are public because they relate to the good and bad of the state and the citizens. Because in a democracy, parties are the pillars of the state. The ideas, agenda and working style of the party determine the ideological, political shape and character of the state. The 'agenda setting' done by

parties is influencing the agenda of the state. And, based on that, the constitution is made and laws work. Not only that, the party is voted by the voters in the elections and the representatives of those parties are represented in the state with the sovereign right of the voters. So, the more democratic, inclusive, liberal and progressive the parties are, the more liberal, progressive and inclusive the state is. The more liberal, ethical and honest the leaders are, the more liberal and civilized the government becomes. To see how democracy works in any modern country, one has to look at how its parties and leaders work.

In this sense, the internal democracy of the parties expresses the character of the overall political system, state and governance arrangements. Therefore, party and leadership are inseparable from the daily life of citizens. And, citizens have the right to question, criticize and comment on the internal and external life of those who are part of the citizen's life. This is not a general right, but a specific right. Which is also protected by the constitution as freedom of speech. Therefore, it is an anti-freedom of speech or anti-public accountability approach for party leaders to argue that it is their internal matter. 

This is where party discipline comes into play. Some party leaders are protesting their decisions and say that the party must discipline its members. Actions, expulsion or suspension etc. are common for that. It is not necessary for outsiders to comment on this. They think that ideals alone do not run the party. Running a

party must be practical and for that discipline within the party is important. I think it's okay. Discipline is needed everywhere. There is no doubt that the state, the government, politics and the party must all be disciplined. But what is discipline? Smugglers live in the central committee of the party, but honest people should be expelled upon questioning, is this discipline? The thugs made the Minister 

ing and the honest should be sidelined, is this the discipline? No matter how undisciplined the factional people are, they are excused, but the question that begs the question is whether party discipline is so biased? Respecting people's conscience, personality and fundamental rights in the name of protecting the leader, is this discipline? The planning of the minority in the name of protecting the party majority, is this what discipline is? 

There was a time when communists were disciplined for watching movies. Love was forbidden. Walking with a young woman was punishable. Sometimes Mao's rules were disciplined, sometimes Lenin's or Stalin's rules were disciplined. At one time, the situation in the Communist Party was such that even for criticizing Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Mao, the leaders would become opponents.

Even now, it is heard that a certain party (except the Communists) has made a discipline not to make public comments on its party president. It is heard that in the constitution of a party, 51 percent vote share is given to the chairman alone and 49 percent vote share to all members. It is heard that some party has made a rule to punish those who criticize.

Somewhere a separate sofa should be arranged for the party president, sometimes a rule has been made that the speech of the party president can be 'quoted'. Hearing all this, it seems that even today there are many forms and colors of Stalinism in some parties of Nepal. Those who respect democracy in order to protect their power and walk around giving the meaning of democracy in a loud voice. How can our age be formed by such pretentious, autocratic and arrogant leadership? How can such parties and leadership save democracy? 

What is surprising is that almost all parties have created internal disciplinary commissions or committees to follow all aspects of discipline. In such a case, will its decision do justice to the parties? In particular, it is inappropriate to form a disciplinary commission or committee in any party.

If there is any immoral conduct, social fault or criminal charges, the laws of the state itself are affected. If speaking otherwise, commenting or questioning violates discipline, that is the most shameful situation for today. This is a dictatorial situation where discipline breaks down because of questions, criticism and comments in the democratic era. At one time this was possible only during the Stalin era. But this is not the Stalin era. This is a democratic era and in a democratic era parties themselves must be democratic and liberal.  As for the

, Stalin was synonymous with despotism and arrogance. He was not only ruthless in the administration of the state, but also autocratic and barbaric in the administration of the party. There are many examples of that in history. As, to take an example, in the 5 years from 1934 to 1939, millions of party members in the Soviet Union were persecuted due to factional reprisals. About 500,000 of them were killed. Incidentally, out of 1,827 delegates who came to participate in the Seventeenth Congress of the Party in 1934, only 37 remained in the Eighteenth Congress of 1939.

At that time, Stalin's individualism was so dominant that, from 1941 to 1945, not a single meeting of the Party Central Committee was held. Stalin was who he was at that time. He did not even have the 'J' of democracy in front of him. Various anecdotal sources say that during the Stalinist era, some 3 million people were deported to Siberia for criticizing the authorities. Fed up with Stalin's cruelty and carelessness, his second wife Ellilueva also committed suicide in 1932. 

Is the path taken by UML and Mr. Oli the same? Otherwise, it is Stalinpath to say that the leader cannot be criticized and it is the other way around. Nowadays, if a party considers its leader as an authority, the leader's order becomes the party order, the party committees do not become the center of discussion, but become the center of work and the democracy within the party is controlled from the pocket of the leader, then it reminds of Stalin. Should public comment and criticism be banned on such trends? If this is the case, how does such a party lead the democratic era? 

Here, let's look at the tendency and critical culture of the three major political parties of Nepal. Like, there is a very big crisis in internal democracy within the UML. It is very sad that the internal democracy in a democratic communist party converted by Madan Bhandari is in crisis and the party line seems to be biased on the question. What is surprising is that even in the Maoist party, which comes from the strict military discipline and Maoist school, it seems that questions, criticisms and debates about alternatives are going on at the second level.

Even if we look at the last one year only, the Maoist party has not taken disciplinary action against any of its leaders for speaking. Even now Varshman Pun and Janardhan Sharma are debating the leadership options. And, the party leadership has not publicly disparaged them. In the Nepali Congress, two general ministers are still constantly criticizing the party leadership. They can openly talk about alternatives. Their proposals are also discussed within the

party. And, for doing so, they are not being prosecuted, but are being established as party alternatives. There is no record of action, criticism and clarification within the Congress in the last few years. But only UML seems like this, where the leadership is becoming more and more autocratic and undemocratic and the leaders who question in the name of discipline are being punished.

Surprisingly, there is no question about the second generation of UML and all are surrendered. On the contrary, leaders dig in and retaliate when their decisions are publicly criticized. This autocracy that appeared in the main political party UML is very dangerous.  Needless to say, the parties must be democratic, liberal and critical to make democracy dynamic. If any leader is ruthless in the party, he is ruthless in the government and also in the state. If any party prohibits questions, when that party runs the government, the government also prohibits questions.