CPN (Unified Socialist) leader Ram Kumari Jhakri was among the most active politicians involved in the formation of the party after its split from the CPN-UML in 2021. Three years later, she is now the most vocal politician calling for a unification of the two parties. Why was the new party’s performance not good and what prompted her to lobby for a party merger? post‘S Thira Lal Bhusal met with former minister Jhakri to gain further insights.
You actively worked to form the CPN (United Socialist), but the party did not perform well. It could not even become a national party in the parliamentary elections. What went wrong?
We formed the CPN (Unified Socialist) out of compulsion. When Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli – who was also the Prime Minister then – dissolved the House in December 2020, we strongly opposed his move, saying he was sowing the seeds of political instability. We held huge protests and approached the Supreme Court against the decision of Oli, our then party leader. I was one of the petitioners.
When the Supreme Court restored the Parliament, we expected that the party would continue to function smoothly. Unfortunately, that was not the case. The party establishment led by Oli and the rival faction went to extremes against each other. The agitating faction announced action against the party leader and the party establishment itself expelled us from the party. When Oli dissolved the Parliament for the second time, we protested against the move as it brought instability. We were in favour of revamping the party through intra-party struggles, but the situation took some unexpected turns. We did not leave the party with a lofty plan to form a new revolutionary organisation. We were forced to do so.
Our new party housed many genuine leaders who had been marginalized in the UML. Ultimately, however, old leaders dominated the new party’s Central Committee. They were active leaders of their time but out of touch with the new, changing context. Young leaders were not given a place in the party committees. I proposed recruiting at least 40 percent of members under 40 for the Central Committee and over 50 percent of members under 30 for the district committees. I made a 29-year-old leader the chairman of the district committee in my home district. In 42 days, I attended 36 district conventions where young people in their 30s were elected as district committee chairs. I tried to reach out to the communities to promote young people in the party groups.
But at the central level, old faces dominated the party committees. This neither attracted people nor impressed the general public. So the party never really got going from the start.
Many people feel that choosing Madhav Kumar Nepal as the party chief was a wrong move as he had led the UML for 15 years and had become the Prime Minister and people did not find anything new in the new party. Do you agree?
Madhav Kumar Nepal has been the most active party leader since its inception. Whatever the party has achieved so far is thanks to him. However, a party leader has to mobilize teams with defined roles and responsibilities and continuously motivate and engage them in result-oriented tasks. He works a lot but does not mobilize the teams effectively.
Observers say that the creation of the United Socialists was due to a conflict between the personalities of the top politicians. In addition, there is a lack of a national agenda and clear policies to prove the need for a new party. Do you agree?
Our immediate agenda was to uphold the Constitution and ensure political stability in the country. We protested against the dissolution of Parliament, which was guided by the same politics. But when the provincial governments were made satellites of the federal government, we could not play any role in their stabilization.
The UML is guided by the policy of people’s democracy propagated by the late Madan Bhandari. There was a debate on how to further develop this policy in the changed context. A large section of left intellectuals were keen to contribute to this. We could have involved them in the process. But our party stopped the debate on this issue too. We missed the chance to involve many critical persons in the discourse and pursue a relatively different policy. When we were in the UML, we conducted direct elections of party representatives and leaders at the party congresses. Unfortunately, the leaders of the new party, Unified Socialist, issued a statute giving the party leadership the power to nominate party secretaries, office bearers and other members. The leaders chose those who were loyal to them. This regressive approach killed competition in the party.
You are known for being more proactive in your work and decision-making. There are rumours that you are fed up with the party’s lackluster style and are thinking of joining its parent party, UML.
If I had to choose purely from a personal point of view, I would have done so much earlier because I have had several opportunities to do so in the past. But I am in favor of a party merger because I see no relevance in running several retail stores under the communist flag, since we are not very different politically. Our electoral system has also made this necessary. The United Socialists cannot run like this. We must accept reality and decide – a merger of our party with the UML is better than this type of leadership.
But it seems that the top politicians of the two parties are still bitter with each other.
True, bitterness continues, especially among the top leaders. We have made some mistakes too. The UML offered some opportunities to the Unified Socialist and we should have made some offers to capitalise on the favourable situation. Once, the UML leaders proposed our party leader as a candidate for the vacant post of President of the country. We should have prepared our own proposal and made a win-win deal. But we ran away and squandered the opportunity. If Madhav Kumar Nepal had become President on the proposal of the UML, our party could have been reunited with the UML much earlier. I also took an initiative for this purpose but in vain. Later, UML Chairman Oli also visited the residence of our party leader to bring our party into the government. But the reaction from our side ruined everything. We are certainly not responding responsibly to the UML. Instead of antagonising the UML, we must turn every positive gesture into an opportunity for party unity.
Another factor is blocking unity between the two parties. There are a large number of second-rate leaders in the UML who cannot directly oppose Oli. They are now encouraging former President Bidya Devi Bhandari to actively enter politics and are trying to get decisions in their favour through her. Oli knows that these leaders will support Nepal if he returns to the UML. Then why should he (Oli) merge the fringe party and create another power centre against himself? He knows that Madhav Kumar Nepal will challenge him with the support of the dissidents. It is natural for a leader to think twice before allowing another leader of his stature to create a parallel power centre within the organisation. Even I would have thought twice. This is a major factor hampering party unity.
Your party leader and other key politicians are quite close to CPN (Maoist Centre) leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal and are critical of UML leader Oli. Moreover, Oli often criticizes Madhav Kumar Nepal publicly. Will the parties still merge?
Our party is basically open to unity with any left party. But party cadres will not join the Maoist Centre. If our leadership decides to merge the party with the Maoists, many of our party cadres will join the UML. The unity between the UML and the United Socialists is natural because we grew up with the same background and orientation. But we are very different from the Maoists.
Several groups that tried to form new political organizations failed to establish and sustain themselves as a major political force. You have worked for years in a major party and also helped to form a new one. What are the challenges of forming a new political organization in Nepal?
Political parties can survive if they evolve with the society. If you trace the history of Congress and Communist parties of Nepal, you can see how they have evolved over the last seven decades. They competed with each other but fought together against autocratic forces and wanted to establish democracy. They have done hundreds of progressive things for the society. Their biggest mistake is that they have multiple entry points but no exit policy. The only way out is the death of the leaders. This has led to unhealthy practices and created dissident groups.
The dissidents, who were not given a place in their party, formed new groups. They also reinforced negative narratives against the old parties. This happened with the Congress, the UML and the Maoist Centre. If there had been a system of exits in the party, the situation would not be so bad. But new political parties cannot survive without their own political ideology and orientation. You can form an organisation, capitalise on people’s frustration and achieve some immediate successes, but groups cannot survive.
But recent electoral trends show that Nepalis are looking for alternative forces and new faces. Can we ignore this?
You are right. We have seen such tendencies in the panchayat system too. But garnering votes in one-term elections and building a sustainable political force are two different things.
