I was saddened to read the news published in Kantipur on Monday titled 'Who is doing the siege against the UML?'

Will the party that is leading the power counter the criticism of itself by employing workers or will it respond with its own work? If government services can be delivered on time, if corruption can be minimized, if the accused of many cases of irregularities and embezzlement can be brought to justice, then the public's trust in the government would increase.

Similarly, the ongoing series of shareholdings in universities and other institutions has exposed the interests of state policy regulators. It is an insult to the meritocracy to set aside meritocracy and appoint a person of personal preference. For this, it is necessary that the leadership of the UML, which is in power, be corrected first. And not to instruct to counter. 

In the recently concluded by-elections, even the Maoists, who were in the opposition category, improved their results, and the UML, which took the leadership of the government, has suffered a setback. In order to review the same, UML has recently called its people's representatives from all over the country to Kathmandu and asked their opinion and issued 6-point instructions. President KP Sharma Oli was seen not only this time, but since he came to the leadership, dictatorial thinking was seen in an unknown way. CPN was called, two presidents were called, but at the time of giving authority, another president Prachanda was tried to be totally winged, which later led to the division of the party itself. Bhim Rawal, Dhanshyam Bhusal, who had a critical mind in the

party, were banned. Now, standing committee member Binda Pandey and central member Ushakiran Timsina were ordered to shut up the mouths of the controversial businessmen who said that donations should not be taken illegally to build the party building. This incident has raised doubts that the character of authoritarianism has started to grow in Oli. 

If there is no internal democracy within a party established in a democratic country, if there is no environment where leaders and workers can debate openly, how can that party be considered a democratic party? Is it because there is no internal democracy in the UML, the rejection of the urban voters?