| bardan |
Posted
on 23-Feb-04 07:10 AM
Why intra-party democracy is a pre-requisite
BY DAMARU LAL BHANDARI
KATHMANDU, Feb 22 - Section of the leaders of the Nepali Congress (NC) hold the view that intra-party democracy was a pre-eminent pre-requisite for a flourishing democratic culture something which is sadly missing in their outfit, resulting in a number of crises.
"I know intra-party democracy is a must but is missing in our party. No party can sustain in the absence of it. And NC is no exception," Central Working Committee (CWC) leader, Chakra Prasad Bastola, said even as he attributed all the ills to lack of the same.
But not many have the temerity to speak out against the leadership even on legitimate causes, which vindicates the claim that there is no intra-party democracy in the oldest political organisation.
To begin with, the basic problem is the party leadership has tended to cover up its consistent failures even as it has ruled out any opportunity to ensure thorough debate and well-considered decisions.
"We do not even have a full central committee, leave alone Mahasamiti meeting and unhindered debate. This proves that democracy is still missing, resulting in all the crises we have hit," Bastola further said, comparing the party with the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) which, too, does not have much
of the paraphernalia of a democratic outfit.
The postponement of General Convention, which was due in January, is the latest example of the party leadership not going all out to hold debate on the contentious and crucial issues.
Some had insisted the event be held but to no effect. Instead it was postponed by a year at a time when there is a dire need for the party to take up the issue at the grassroots level.
In fact, the dramatic expulsion of Sher Bahadur Deuba, the famous split and resultant loss issuing out of it, too, have been attributed to the failure of the leadership to deliver and ensure intra-party democracy.
Sources in the party have also said the parties (including the CPN-UML) were waiting for "good gestures" from King Gyanendra after October 4, 2002, but were disappointed when that did not happen. Bastola also conceded that leadership has failed to assess the threats all along.
As it became evident later on, the political parties were actually waiting for a ride to power rather than drawing up any strategy for effective agitation against dismissal of Deuba, who enjoyed far more legitimacy than his successors.
Yet another central leader Mahesh Acharya conceded that the party had committed a mistake by not even issuing a strongly
worded statement against the
regression on October 4. Much like Narahari Acharya, he, too, considered it as an internal issue of the party, though.
Meanwhile, the trend certainly is to please the powerful elite even as the five-party alliance fears that if they go too far the unpredictable turn of events could upset the applecart further.
Given the way the party is functioning since quite sometime, said Narahari Acharya, leave alone throwing up a new leadership, the movement is so much diluted that it is proving less effective in pressing the cause. He singled out the event of February 19 as the lowest point the party could hit in their fight against regression.
"We demonstrated our weaknesses by handing out fixed slogans on that day," Narahari Acharya said, conceding that the act has further exposed the weaknesses in the party. Both the leaders did not react when asked to comment on the repeated mistakes committed by the parties down the years, claiming the issue was an internal matter.
|
