There is a dearth of politics based on ideals, principles, ideas and ethics in Nepal. Even the mainstream communist parties, which debate evergreen political principles and ideas, have moved far away from communist principles and ideas. Despite seeming to adhere to ideological ideals in public speeches and slogans, the big communist parties have in practice drifted away from communist ideological ideals.

The revolutionary communist parties played an effective role in making the anti-feudal movement successful to some extent. Basically, the Jhapa rebellion, the revolutionary power of the Communist Party and the then CPN (Maoist) played a major role in ending the feudal political power.

CPN (UML), the leader of the current government, formed in 2035 through the anti-feudal Jhapa Rebellion, Co-ordination Center and is a party formed in 2047 by uniting with CPN (Marxist) formed in 2043 by unity between CPN (ML) and Pushpalal group led by Manmohan Adhikari and Sahna Pradhan. 

UML's legacy is the anti-feudal struggle. After the 5th Congress of 2049, UML accepted Madan Bhandari's 'People's Multiparty Democracy' as the program of the Nepali Revolution. The strategy of being a part of the parliamentary system, struggling within the parliament and making maximum efforts for progressive transformation is the essence of the job. It has been interpreted as a guide for the establishment and implementation of socialism. 

The basic theoretical belief of the Communist Party is class struggle. It is the basic responsibility of the Communist Party to fight firmly against the oppression of the proletariat, working class and the oppressed class and gender by the state power of the exploiters and the capitalist class or to establish a state power that will liberate the oppressed class.

Not only this, the Communist Party is also responsible for carrying out a political program with the ideology of ending all kinds of oppression, discrimination and tyranny against the oppressed classes, genders and communities of the society. However, since 2047 CPN (UML) joined the practice of parliamentary capitalist political system, UML has neither any ideology in favor of the liberation of laborers, poor, laborers and farmers, nor a program for the liberation of the oppressed class, gender and community. 

On the other hand, the Communist Party explains the dictatorship of the proletariat as a principle. Does the CPN (UML) listen to the voice of the proletariat, laborers and working class? Dikendra Rajvanshi started the Jhapa Rebellion because the revolutionary communist struggle would liberate the working class and oppressed communities. Not only the leaders who emerged from the same struggle, but also their relatives and loved ones were uplifted. But Rajvanshi, the warrior of the Jhapa Rebellion, rushed to the UML headquarters to get his son into a small job, and after being ignored by everyone, he committed suicide in the party office in 2067. 

This is only a representative event. Does the UML listen to the plight of thousands of warriors who joined the struggle with the hope of the liberation of the working class, the poor, the peasants and the laborers? Is the question of the liberation of those classes reflected in the party's ideas, approaches, policies, programs and practices? If he was committed to communist ideas, principles and ideals, then UML would have stood up for the victims of the meter-by-market who have been exploited all their lives by usurers.

would have become the voice of the landless, squatters, poor, women, Dalits and minorities. However, for the UML, the proletariat, the poor, the working class, and the laborers are nothing but a subject to be included in the document. 

Although it is called communist, the character of UML has been transformed into a party of the capitalist class. Even in pro-people or progressive socio-economic transformation, UML has not been able to play any effective role. So the name is communist but in practice the character of UML is not communist. In fact, the UML, which looks different in appearance and in practice, has been transformed into a pseudo-communist party in name only. 

Democracy in theory, totalitarianism in practice 

Most of the Communist Party leadership around the world has been following a totalitarian framework. That is why there is a comment that there is no democratic practice within the Communist Party. Lenin conceptualized and practiced populist centralism to theoretically organize the organization and operation of the Communist Party. The essence of the

populism is that the democratic system of ideological debate within the organization of the party, keeping different opinions as legal and allowing them to be discussed should be followed. Independence in discussion and uniformity in decision implementation are understood as democratic centralism. 

In this way, the practice of democratic centralism means that the majority appreciates the minority because the minority may be right in some issues or questions. The practice of democracy broadens the 'space' to critically review or comment not only on the party's ideas, principles and approaches, but also on the leadership. 

The Congress of the Communist Party is a place where intensive discussions are held regarding ideas, leadership, policy and direction. However, democracy keeps open the way for continuous debate and discussion on such questions for the development of ideas. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao adopted the policy of 'allowing all flowers to bloom' or giving space to the discussion and development of all ideas in terms of the practice of democracy. UML has also included the policy of applying the principle of democratic centralism, maintaining a balance between freedom and discipline in the revised constitution of 2078. 

This means that different opinions or ideas should be held confidently within all the party committees, the way for intensive discussion on those ideas should be open and the decision of the majority should be implemented while respecting the opinion of the minority. However, there is no indication that the populist practice as explained by Lenin has been implemented in the UML. Rather, the leadership seems to be practicing the tendency of prohibiting different opinions or ending the political life of those who have different opinions.

Two issues raised in the meeting of the central committee held this week - the 70-year age limit for the party leadership and the political activism of the former president Bidya Bhandari, the situation where the central members have to speak cautiously when voting is a challenge to internal democracy. 

In the Russian communist movement, Stalin was criticized for narrowing democracy and suppressing dissent. Regarding UML, the situation where the decision of party president KP Sharma Oli is the final one seems to be getting stronger. Strengthening internal democracy in the party, debating different opinions and viewpoints and drawing conclusions and brutal discussions regarding policy, leadership and behavior are not seen in UML. 

Party President Oli's exercise of power is basically hegemonic or it seems to be of the nature of oppressing the weak and imposing decisions. The latest example of this is the barring of Vidya Bhandari from party membership. Bhandari's active party politics may have positive or negative aspects, but the essence of stopping membership is to maintain the party's monopoly of power. Not only Vidya Bhandari, but also the leaders who are likely to claim leadership in the upcoming Congress. There are many examples of populism in theory and hegemony in practice. 

Intolerant towards the oppressed

Tribal tribes, Madhesi and marginalized communities have been struggling for federalism in Nepal for a long time, and during the Maoist people's war, the province practiced ethnic-regional autonomous province. During the Constituent Assembly, the oppressed community was raising the issue of federalism with identity and autonomy, especially by ending the single ethnic centralized state power. 

Tribal tribes have been raising the issue of ending the historical linguistic-cultural oppression of the oppressed community, the economic situation, the intervention of a single ethnic state on land and civilization. However, the UML stood against the identity, autonomy and priority of the tribal tribes, Tharu, Madheshi and marginalized communities. 

did not listen to the voice of tribal people within the party. As a result, the then vice-president Ashok Rai had to leave the party. Originally, the tribal people fought a long struggle regarding the naming of the Koshi region. The state put a lot of pressure on the cable car operation in Mukumlung. The Tharu are seeking freedom from historical exploitation and oppression.

The oppressed community is continuing the struggle for identity and rights in one way or another, but in this regard, the UML is showing insensitive behavior in such serious socio-political issues. Due to the caste system, there is continuous oppression, violence and atrocities on Dalits, but the UML party has no clear ideological vision and plan for the liberation of Dalits. The party seems to accept the principle of inclusion. However, when the party is in the leadership of the government, not a single Dalit is appointed as a minister. Until the opportunity, UML President Oli oppressed  The

community also opposes the general reservation rights they have gained through struggle. Not only this, Oli is retrogressive in terms of women's liberation and rights. 

It is the responsibility of the party president to strengthen the female leadership of the party, which has historically been collapsing the mountain of gender oppression, to give responsibility and to move the party forward in the direction of women's liberation. Oli could never listen to the voices of the grassroots organizations within the party, decide the strategy to address the needs and desires of the oppressed community, and lead progressive socio-political transformation.

Basically, Oli's ego has been in the work of stopping progressive transformation and progress, systematically suppressing the voices and movements of marginalized communities and strengthening the monopolistic power with patriarchal Khasary dominance. This has finally led UML Khasarya to become the leader of single caste politics. 

UML: From the status quo to the status quo