Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the coordinator of the Nepali Communist Party, has entered his 72nd year since this November. He has spent exactly half of his 72 years, or 36 years, at the helm of the party.

After the failure of the 'Sector Scandal' orchestrated by the then CPN Mashal in 2043 Baisakh and the growing controversy in the party, he was elected as the party chief at the Central Committee meeting held in 2046 Kartik. Through many unity and division, the name of the party he led was Mashal, Ekta Kendra, Maoist, UCPN-Maoist, Maoist Center, CPN, and again Maoist Center, and became the Nepali Communist Party. But he is unwavering in leadership.

Dahal is a strong example of the tendency to always try to stay there from many angles after reaching the leadership. A similar tendency is being adopted by the leadership of all the communist parties in Nepal.

KP Sharma Oli was elected as the UML president for the third time from the 11th General Convention. Oli had already become the secretary in 2029 as the head of the then Jhapa District Committee. He was last elected as the UML president from the 9th General Convention of UML held in 2071 and continues to be the president. He was also the president of the NCP from 2075 Jestha to 2077 Falgun.

85-year-old Narayanman Bijukchhe is a similar leader. The Nepal Workers and Peasants Organization, which was formed under his leadership in 2031, eventually became the Nepal Workers and Peasants Party, but he is the only one who has been in the leadership. The eighth general convention of the party held in 2081 Falgun also elected him as the president. 90-year-old Mohan Bikram Singh is currently the general secretary (party chief) of the NCP Masal. He has also been continuously leading different parties since the 1930s except for a year or two.

In 2054, the UML split and became the ML. In 2058, a part of it returned to the UML. The rest is being led by CP Mainali. It has been 24 years since 74-year-old Mainali started leading the reorganized ML. In fact, in 2029, he had also taken the leadership by staging a 'coup' against Oli, the then leader of the Jhapa District Committee. He was later arrested and jailed. After the Nakkhu jail 'break', he returned to the party and led the then MALE. He continued to be the formal/informal leader of the Jhapa District Committee, the All Nepal Coordination Committee (KOK) and the MALE. He was removed from the leadership only in 2039.

Apart from those currently in leadership, other leaders of the Communist Party such as Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhalanath Khanal, Narayan Kaji Shrestha, Chitra Bahadur KC, Bamdev Gautam, Mohan Vaidya, and Netra Bikram Chand, who are considered big leaders, have also been in leadership or near-leadership positions for a long time.

Recently, after the young leaders of the Congress snatched the leadership of the party from the hands of the old leader through a special general convention, it is being analyzed that the party has turned from a frozen pond into a river flowing from a frozen pond. And, at the same time, the question has arisen – when does youth involvement increase in communist parties? When do stagnant ponds called the Communist Party turn into rivers? Why are leaders who have read communist literature that tells stories of rebellion unable to follow it?

Why are they always in leadership?

There are some specific tendencies within the Communist Party that allow the same people to remain in leadership for years, some are common tendencies that apply to all political parties.

Dr. Sanjib Humagain, who teaches political science and international relations theory at Tribhuvan University and Nepal Open University, says, ‘Democratic centralism is practiced in communist parties. Where even though there is discussion during decision-making, the party leadership is followed during implementation. That is why they are mostly leadership-centered.’

The learning of Nepal’s communist parties is influenced by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China. At one time, the Communist Party of Nepal was ‘tagged’ as pro-Russian or pro-Chinese. There was a practice of staying in leadership for a long time. Political analyst Jhalak Subedi says, ‘The Communist Parties of Nepal have also learned the party’s construction style and operating method from there.’

Social psychology is also to blame. Nepali society tends to worship and patronize people in positions of power. A person who is separated from positions of power falls outside the interests of society. The leadership has a mentality of not wanting to give up the special privileges, honors, or patronage they receive while in office. On the other hand, those who grew up in feudal families directly reached the leadership of the Communist Party, so Subedi says that feudal thinking is also prevalent in them. Due to such thinking, only if I remain at the head of the party will there be people sitting around me and saying namaste, I can give them something, they are favored by me because I have given, so they think that they should keep such power .

‘The feudal thinking carried by the leadership of the Communist Party of Nepal is not compatible with socialist ideas, nor with Marxism,’ says Subedi, ‘It is not compatible with the proletarian morality that the communists say . Because, proletarian morality advocates collectivism .’

The development of potential new leadership has been hindered when one person remains in leadership. If the leadership changes regularly, new leaders would be prepared for the new leadership . They would make themselves capable for that . They would work hard for policies and programs that suit the time and society  . They would study  . They would increase public relations . However, when the same leadership remains in the leadership for years, the path to the leadership of the rest is blocked. The series of splits in the Communist Party also becomes relevant here. After the third general convention of the then NCP held in 2019, a series of divisions in the Communist Party began. Dozens of communist parties were formed in Nepal throughout the 20s and 30s. Many leaders were born in different parties. They considered it appropriate to remain in the leadership even if it was a small party rather than joining other parties and occupying lower positions. Such parties became a situation where they could not be overthrown or even destroyed. The established leaders remained in the leadership for decades. Similarly, the communist parties that grew up during the Panchayat period, when open political activities were restricted, raised the leadership as an authority. Even after entering open politics, the nature of that time remained the same. Despite the adoption of a semblance of democratic practice, the special right of the leadership to make decisions has not been removed. Whether it is when distributing tickets in elections or negotiating with other parties, the practice of giving the chairman the right to make the final decision remains the same.

Even though the practice of 'exit policy' is not in practice in Nepali politics, it has been possible for the same leadership to remain for a long time. This applies to almost all parties. Because, there is no mention of the tenure of the party leadership in the constitutional and legal terms. Therefore, there is no compulsion to relinquish the leadership of the party in certain situations. The UML also practiced by keeping the age limit of 70 years and the provision of two terms in the constitution. But this year, those provisions were removed to make 73-year-old Oli the chairman for the third time. On the other hand, the practice of taking moral responsibility and resigning from office if the party he leads suffers a defeat in the elections, the party suffers other misfortunes, or if serious allegations are made against the party leadership itself is very limited. UML General Secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal resigned after the party came in third place in the first Constituent Assembly election held in Chaitra, 2064. However, he did not resign even when he was the chairman of the Unified Socialist Party and was released on bail by a special court. Because, in the meantime, he understood that once you leave the party leadership, it is difficult to return.

Being in the party leadership means that you have a strong possibility of reaching the Prime Minister, Minister or any other kind of political position at any time. With such a position, you can exercise power. You can also make economic moves. There is a tendency not to leave the leadership to keep that possibility alive. 'Every person is fighting for their social existence. Among the identities of existence, political or party identity has become strong in Nepal. For that, you have to stay in the party and the higher you reach in the party, the more social identity you establish, so it has become a culture to stay in the leadership,' says Humagain.

What has been the impact?

Humagain says that it cannot be said that the continuous presence of the same person in leadership has had a positive impact on the potential new leadership, the party, society and the country. ‘Instead, it has weakened faith in the system,’ he says, ‘It has led people to the situation where they say, ‘Isn’t democracy a system where certain people can be manipulated?’’

The weak democratic practice within the Communist Party has also made it possible for one person to remain in leadership. There is a tendency to deify the leadership and discourage those who try to challenge the leadership, expel them from the party or force them to leave. There are many such examples in the UML and the Maoists. As a result, the leadership becomes more powerful, and those who disagree with them have to leave or remain inactive.

The development of potential new leadership has been hindered by the presence of one person in leadership. If the leadership changes were done regularly, new leaders would be prepared for the new leadership. They would make themselves capable for that. They would work hard for policies and programs that suit the time and society. They would study. They would increase public relations. However, when the same leadership remains in the leadership for years, the path to leadership for the rest is blocked. Even in the midst of dissatisfaction, there is a compulsion to stay in the party or leave. Since many do not want to split the party, they are forced to stay inside the same party.

If there is no change in the leadership, the leaders below them stop there. They again stop the leaders below them. Gradually, the leaders stop the leaders below them. In such a situation, the new leadership and dynamics die. Even those who have the potential to be the chairman die. That weakens the party.

Democratic practices have been reduced within parties that have adopted the practice of remaining under the leadership of one person. Because, such leadership has strengthened its faction within the party. They have prepared a large number of leaders and cadres who benefit from it. Who play a role in weakening the questions raised on the leadership. They also obstruct regular democratic practices. As a result, internal democracy itself becomes weak.

Humagain says, ‘The entire party has been made bureaucratic.’ Due to this, the cadres at the bottom feel that no matter how good they do, they will not reach the top. Due to this, the psychological environment for innovation is reduced.’

With the same leadership and the same work management system, the attraction towards parties in society decreases. Which causes the entire party to suffer. The main reason for the decline of parties like Maoists, Male, Janamorcha, and NEMKIPA is the lack of innovation in their leadership and the policies they come up with. Let's look at Maoists, this party, which became the largest party in 2064, has been continuously declining in the elections since then. The Janamorcha and NEMKIPA are also struggling for one or two seats. Male has ceased to be represented in parliament.

'When a party is in revolution, even if one person continues to be in the leadership, he can continue to represent the authority of the revolution, if the revolution is in motion. If the movement is in motion and gaining strength, it does not matter if one person is in the leadership. Because, he becomes like an authority. Experience and knowledge lead the situation to the party's favor,' says Subedi, 'In the politics of competition, society is testing a person. In this situation, seeing the same face for a long time reduces the attraction of new people towards him. पार्टीमा नयाँ मान्छेको प्रवेश पनि घट्छ । त्यसपछि पार्टी स्वतः कमजोर भएर जान्छ । उही व्यक्तिको अनुहार र भाषणले पार्टीभित्र पनि दिग्दारी उत्पन्न हुन्छ ।’