The Congress, which has been going through a cycle of division and unity due to perennial power struggles, permanent factionalism and endless disputes, is now once again facing the same cursed fate. On the one hand, the unprecedented victory of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the elections and the shameful defeat of the Congress seem to have caused serious political and psychological trauma to the central leaders and local level workers. On the other hand, the internal crisis created after the Sher Bahadur Deuba-Shekhar Koirala group moved the Supreme Court against the special general convention seems to be deepening further after the parallel meetings and unnatural activities continued even after the elections. In the Congress, which has a hereditary characteristic of controversy, division and unity, such controversial activities have raised a questionable question from the perspective of both unity and existence. Is the Congress headed towards division? Why has the Congress become so weak despite its strong theoretical, ideological and class base? Has the Congress become irrelevant or is it the failure of the previous leadership? Is there a possibility of revival of the Congress? Questions like these have been the subject of debate in political circles. Some political scientists and analysts have suggested that the Congress should not only undergo ‘cosmetic’ reforms, transformation and reorganization, but also be rebuilt or reconstructed. They have even predicted that if it is not rebuilt or reconstructed, the Congress may be headed towards dissolution. The theory of deconstruction, propounded by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida in the 20th century, is basically related to language, literature and philosophy. A new theory that is developed by analyzing or questioning established or ancient values, principles, meanings and structures from a critical perspective is called deconstruction. That is, deconstruction means fundamental transformation or restructuring or reconstruction. But how to deconstruct the Congress? This is the most complex and unanswered question at a time when populism, liberalism, and nationalism are posing serious challenges to democratic and centrist parties worldwide.

Theoretical and ideological reinterpretation

Nationalism, democracy, and socialism are the guiding principles of the Congress. Until the end of the 20th century, there was a tendency for parties to be established on a specific political philosophy, principle, and class basis. Not only the Nepali Congress, but also the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States, the Conservatives and Labor in Britain, and the BJP and Congress in India were established with the same objective and process. But in the era of the fifth industrial revolution of the 21st century, the traditional method and tendency of forming parties only on the basis of a particular ideology or ideology has changed. The problems of today are more complex and challenging than those of the 19th and 20th centuries. New problems and challenges such as economic inequality, climate change, temperature rise, sustainable and green development, ecological imbalance, unemployment, artificial intelligence, gig economy, digitalization, immigration have been created.
Now, ideas, policies and agendas are the main priority for the people rather than traditional philosophies, ideologies and principles. People are not interested in big, empty and abstract ideologies like socialism, liberalism, communism. Direct and immediate economic development, rule of law, good governance, corruption control, universal service delivery, quality education, health, transportation, employment, transparency, and accountability are the main agendas of the people. Now, people are looking for delivery more than scriptures and principles. Classical thinking, classical perspectives and classical thinking have no meaning. If they are not converted into policies and programs that solve the problems of the country and the people, there is no justification for empty principles and abstract ideologies. Therefore, a dynamic and policy-oriented Congress is a prerequisite for construction rather than a classical theorist.

Now, ideas, policies and agendas are the main priority for the people rather than traditional philosophies, ideologies and theories.

It is imperative for the Congress to review the ideologies, ideologies and theories it has been following so far and set a clear roadmap. In order to build the democratic, progressive and just society envisioned by the Congress, it is necessary to revise, interpret and reinterpret its ideas, principles and policies in a timely manner. This is a natural political process because any theory and idea is dynamic and changeable. In particular, democratic socialism needs to be reconsidered or redefined in a timely manner in the changing economic and social scenario. The Congress should follow a progressive and liberal economic policy based on inclusive economic growth, which will ensure a production-oriented and employment-oriented economy. Therefore, construction should begin with theoretical and ideological clarity. But it is necessary to have intensive discussions, debates and deliberations on such serious theoretical and ideological issues not only in the closed session of the upcoming 15th General Convention, but also from now on. The 15th General Convention will be a 'turning point' for the future of the Congress, which is going through a transition period in terms of both policy and leadership, and a test for the Congress people. President Gagan Thapa has been demanding a theoretical and ideological reinterpretation for a long time and has also presented his alternative point of view. Thapa seems to be leading a liberal, progressive and pluralist trend, which is appropriate. Therefore, the Congress should not be transformed into a conservative, but a more democratic, liberal and progressive party. If it is oriented towards the conservative trend, it will be even more irrelevant.

Party reconstruction

The structure of the Congress is traditional and the party system is almost dead. The party structure is extremely clumsy and unnecessary. The structures from the center to the villages are not dynamic and functional. It seems that the leaders and workers of the Congress have been giving special priority to power over principles and to factions over institutions. The Congress has become a leader-oriented party, not a policy-oriented one. The workers of the Congress are also not people-oriented, but leader-oriented. They do not go door-to-door to the people, but to the leaders. This has become their way of life. Therefore, everyone from the leaders to the workers of the Congress has become alienated from the people. The internal democracy of the party is weak. The decision-making process is also not lawful, participatory and inclusive. Therefore, most of the decisions of the Congress have been controversial. For the relevance and future of the Congress, it was necessary to fundamentally restructure or transform it a decade ago. For the past two decades, this agenda has been strongly raised by the intellectual community, media, social media and civil society. Gagan Thapa, Pradeep Giri, Narahari Acharya have also been advocating this agenda from within the Congress. But the leadership did not listen to anyone's ideas. Therefore, from an organizational point of view, an inevitable environment has been created where the Congress needs to be built or rebuilt. Otherwise, the status quo has no future for the Congress.
If the Congress is to be revived, it should be transformed into a mass-based, liberal and open party, not a cadre-based one, in accordance with the basic principles and character of a democratic party. It should be transformed into a policy-oriented party, not a leader-based one. A system should be developed in which the party's cadres are not loyal to the leader, but are accountable to all the people, from the leader to the cadres. The membership system is also controversial and control-oriented. Membership is distributed not with the party's future, mass base and organization expansion in mind, but on the basis of factional objectives, strategies and mathematical additions and subtractions. But the democratic party should also make its organization and membership system democratic and liberal. The two membership systems, active and general, should be abolished and a single membership system should be implemented. So far, leadership has been selected in a representative manner. But now it would be appropriate to select the leadership from ward to center through a direct process from party members. Similarly, tickets should be distributed through primary elections as passed by the special general convention.

If the Congress is to be revived, then according to the basic principles and character of the democratic party, it should be transformed into a mass-based, liberal and open party, not a cadre-based party. It should be transformed into a policy-based party, not a leader-based party.

There is no provision for a fair place and role for intellectuals, professionals, and experts and distinguished personalities established in their fields. This is why there is no attraction to the Congress. Since intellectuals, professionals and experts can make a positive contribution, it is necessary to implement the provision of 'lateral entry' (a system that ensures their proper place and role in the party through a special process). Because until a common platform for all democrats is formed, the Congress cannot be revived. Similarly, fraternal organizations other than youth, students, women, workers, indigenous-tribal, and Dalits should also be reconsidered and abolished. Benevolent organizations in non-political and professional sectors such as employees, professors, teachers, doctors, legal practitioners, engineering, and journalism should be abolished. Now the chapter of a cadre-based party, full-time cadres and lifelong leadership has come to an end. A legal provision should be made for the leadership of the party and the government that two terms and mandatory retirement or automatic ineligibility for executive roles at the age of 65 to 70 should be made. To ensure such a comprehensive reorganization and transformation process in a legal manner, the statute should also be amended from the 15th General Convention. Visionary leadership

As important as ideas and organization are in the party, leadership plays a decisive role. The main reason for the weakness of the Congress is the failed and unpopular leadership of its predecessor Sher Bahadur Deuba. On the one hand, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has formed a strong government by securing about 48 percent of the votes. On the other hand, the combined votes of the UML and the NCP are more than those of the Congress. The challenge of reviving the Congress by competing with the strong Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Communists is complex. But for a leadership with vision, confidence and willpower, a crisis is also an opportunity in another sense. A visionary, popular and energetic leadership capable of facing such a challenge is the need of the day. Such leadership is Gagan Thapa. There is no alternative to Thapa now. The people have hope in Thapa and the workers have faith in him. Therefore, ‘building a new Congress under Thapa’s leadership’ is the appropriate strategy at the moment.
After the party was defeated in the elections, it is natural for the president to take moral responsibility. But Thapa's leadership as president has not been tested. Therefore, it is necessary for Thapa to go to the people with more theoretical and ideological clarity, more confidence and determination after introspection and self-reflection. If this is the last opportunity for the revival of the Congress, then it is the last test for Thapa. New leadership with generational change is the main demand of the Gen-G rebellion. Now is the time to establish leadership with generational change according to the feelings of the people and the Gen-G generation from the center to the ward.

Not only former President Sher Bahadur Deuba, but also the unsuccessful second and third generations who have been in the leadership ranks for a long time and have not been able to deliver despite getting opportunities time and again should be given mandatory retirement. Analyzing the controversial statements and shameful activities since the special general convention and after the election, it is necessary to free the Congress from such a trend immediately. It seems that the group has adopted a bargaining strategy by showing fear of party division. तर वास्तविकता के हो भने यस्तो असफल र अलोकप्रिय पंक्तिको अब पार्टी विभाजन गर्न सक्ने हैसियतसमेत छैन ।

बेलायतको लेबर र भारतीय कांग्रेसको शिक्षा

कांग्रेसका बारेमा बहस गर्दा प्रायः दुइटा उदाहरण सान्दर्भिक लाग्छ । ती हुन्– बेलायतको लेबर र भारतीय कांग्रेस पार्टीको उत्थान र पतन । आजको घडीमा यी उदाहरण थप सान्दर्भिक र शिक्षाप्रद भएका छन् । नेपाली कांग्रेसको भन्दा पनि सुनौलो र गौरवशाली इतिहास भारतीय कांग्रेसको छ । नेपाली कांग्रेसले निरंकुशतन्त्रको विरुद्धमा तथा लोकतन्त्र र जनताका अधिकारका लागि संघर्ष गर्‍यो । तर भारतीय कांग्रेसले एकातिर बेलायती उपनिवेशवाद र स्वतन्त्रताका लागि सम्झौताहीन लामो र कठोर संघर्ष गर्‍यो भने अर्कोतिर लोकतन्त्र स्थापनाका लागि । बेलायती उपनिवेशबाट स्वतन्त्रता हासिल गरी लोकतान्त्रिक पद्धतिलाई संस्थागत विकास गर्न मात्रै होइन, विकसित र आधुनिक भारतको आधारशिला खडा गर्न भारतीय कांग्रेसले युगान्तकारी भूमिका निर्वाह गरेको थियो । तर यस्तो गौरवपूर्ण र सुनौलो इतिहास भएको तथा उदार लोकतन्त्र पक्षधर भारतीय कांग्रेस किन विगत एक दशकभन्दा लामो समयदेखि इतिहासमा नै सबैभन्दा कमजोर भयो ? 
भारतीय कांग्रेसको नीति समयानुकूल प्रगतिशील र नेतृत्व गतिशील हुन सकेन । भारतीय कांग्रेस कमजोर र अलोकप्रिय हुनुमा तपसिलका अन्य भए पनि प्रमुख कारण वंशजका आधारमा नेतृत्वमा आएका राहुल गान्धी हुन् । भारतीय कांग्रेसमा नेतृत्वको स्वाभाविक विकास भएन । भिजन, योग्यता र क्षमताका आधारमा लोकतान्त्रिक, सहभागितामूलक र पारदर्शी रूपमा होइन, वंशजका आधारमा नेतृत्व हस्तान्तरण गरिँदै आएको छ । नेहरू–गान्धी परिवारकी बुहारी सोनिया गान्धीले वंशजका आधारमा छोरा राहुल गान्धीलाई नेतृत्व हस्तान्तरण गरिन् । वंशजमा आधारित नेतृत्व र राहुल गान्धीको असफलता नै भारतीय कांग्रेसको असफलता र अलोकप्रियता हो । यसैगरी भारतीय कांग्रेसले पार्टीको आदर्श, सिद्धान्त र नीतिलाई पनि समयानुकूल पुनःपरिभाषित तथा अद्यावधिक गर्न सकेन । त्यसैले यस्तो नीतिगत तथा नेतृत्वको कमजोरीको अधिकतम राजनीतिक लाभ बीजेपीले लिँदै आइरहेको छ । 

भारतीय कांग्रेसको नीति समयानुकूल प्रगतिशील र नेतृत्व गतिशील हुन सकेन । भारतीय कांग्रेस कमजोर र अलोकप्रिय हुनुमा तपसिलका अन्य भए पनि प्रमुख कारण वंशजका आधारमा नेतृत्वमा आएका राहुल गान्धी हुन् । 

बेलायतको कन्जरभेटिभभन्दा लेबर पार्टी उदार र प्रगतिशील मानिन्छ । तर इतिहासको कुनै कालखण्डमा कन्जरभेटिभभन्दा पनि लेबर पार्टीको नीति र नेतृत्व कन्जरभेटिभ थियो । त्यसैले सन् १९८० को दशकमा लेबर पार्टी सबैभन्दा कमजोर र अलोकप्रिय भयो । विशेषगरी परिवर्तित परिदृश्यमा अर्थतन्त्र तथा अर्थनीतिप्रति कन्जरभेटिभ दृष्टिकोण भएको कारणले लेबर पार्टी असान्दर्भिक हुँदै गएको थियो । लेबर पार्टीले राज्य नियन्त्रित समाजवादी अर्थनीति अनुसरण गर्दै आएको थियो । तर सन् १९९४ को महाधिवेशनबाट टोनी ब्लेयर नेतृत्वमा आएपछि लेबर पार्टीलाई मौलिक रूपमा रूपान्तरण गरे । राष्ट्रिय–अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय परिवेश बुझेका भिजनरी नेता ब्लेयरले शास्त्रीय लेबरलाई ‘न्यु लेबर’ पार्टीका रूपमा रूपान्तरण मात्रै गरेनन्, संगठन प्रणालीसमेत आमूल परिवर्तन गरे । ब्लेयरले परम्परागत लोकतान्त्रिक समाजवादी लेबरलाई सामाजिक लोकतन्त्रवादी पार्टीका रूपमा रूपान्तरण गरे । त्यसैले लेबरले परम्परागत समाजवादी अर्थनीति त्यागेर उदार अर्थनीति अनुसरण गर्‍यो । यसरी उदार र प्रगतिशील नीति अख्तियार गरेपछि तथा ब्लेयर जस्तो भिजनरी नेतृत्व पाएपछि सन् १९९७ को निर्वाचनमा लोकप्रिय जनमतका साथ लेबर पार्टीले विजय हासिल गर्‍यो । लेबरले अनुसरण गरेको नयाँ अर्थनीति र संगठन प्रणालीका कारण लगातार तीन पटक विजय भई प्रधानमन्त्री भएका ब्लेयरले बेलायतको अर्थतन्त्र र अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सम्बन्धलाई नयाँ उचाइमा पुर्‍याएका थिए ।  निष्कर्ष