We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
In a democracy, the issue raised in the meetings of the parties cannot be the concern of that party only. The agenda of such meeting, the decision of the discussion also affects the life of the common people, and people's interest remains.
UML has made the agenda of this year's central committee meeting from government operation to organization expansion. However, the general public is watching with interest the recent action taken by UML against 3 leaders including Bhim Rawal and whether it will be discussed in the meeting or not.
The internal democracy of UML has come under question due to the questions raised by Rawal about the leadership after the expulsion of the party. If the current meeting does not address this, then the message will be sent that there will be no internal democracy in UML, only fear, terror and Stalinist thinking of KP Sharma Oli.
No one dares to speak the right thing if action is taken even if they speak the right thing. Which weakens the party. If Bhim Rawal, who has contributed as much as Oli to the party, will be prosecuted without being allowed to stay in the party, then who else will be left like him tomorrow? UMA did not even give space to a leader with strong nationalist and honest image like Bhim Rawal. Rawal's expulsion and Binda Pandey's suspension show that as long as KP Oli is there, there is no place for healthy criticism within the UML. This is a black mark on the democratic image of UML.
10 brothers including Bhim Rawal, Dhanshyam Bhusal opposed Oli's working style, they started to be ostracized from that time. It can be understood that Oli's vindictive style is shrinking internal democracy within UML. Does he want to model the UML on the model of the Chinese Communist Party? If his behavior does not stop, the history and democratic character of UML will become more tarnished. When Madhav was in the leadership of Nepal UML, Oli was in the opposition role within the party.
At that time, Oli thought it was every worker's right to protest and criticize within the party and spoke in meetings for hours. But today, as soon as he reaches the leadership, he has reached a state where he cannot even listen to healthy criticism. Now he not only does not want to listen to others but also does not want to hear the word that communists should be united in Nepal. How long will the leaders after Oli continue to watch his style of work?
– Gopal Devkota, Jorpati, Kathmandu
