- CPN-UML and Prachanda’s NCP are exploring left unity, but internal leadership disputes and organizational challenges remain significant hurdles to cooperation.
- UML leadership is reviewing election results while debating a transition to the younger generation within the framework of existing party statutes.
- The NCP faces integration difficulties among diverse factions, leading to internal dissatisfaction regarding leadership distribution and organizational settlement.
- Historical failures indicate that sustainable unification depends on resolving deep conflicts over power-sharing, decision-making, and a shared political ideology.
Kathmandu: Unity and division have long been part of Nepal’s communist politics. Parties from the same political stream have repeatedly split, formed new groups and structures, and later come together again. The country appears to be entering another such phase.
Recent talks and growing cooperation between the CPN-UML and the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ have revived discussion about left unity. Efforts to work together at the provincial level and talks among senior leaders have drawn attention to the changing relationship between the two parties.
But the picture is not that simple.
While the UML and NCP appear closer from the outside, both are dealing with questions of their own—about leadership, organization and political direction. Inside the UML, the review of the latest election results has opened a discussion about leadership and the transfer of responsibility to a new generation. The NCP, meanwhile, is still working to bring leaders and groups from different political backgrounds into a single organization.
For that reason, the current debate over left unity cannot be viewed only as a question of whether the two parties will cooperate. It also depends on how they handle their own internal disputes and organizational changes.
The Leadership Question in the UML
After winning only 25 seats in the latest House of Representatives election, the UML began reviewing its performance. What started as a discussion about organization and working methods soon reached the question of leadership.
The debate over developing new leaders and giving greater responsibility to the younger generation has brought the party’s future leadership structure into the public discussion. At the same time, some leaders have stressed that any change in leadership should follow the party statute and established procedures.
The debate, therefore, is broader than the immediate question of changing the leadership. The party is also considering how to reorganize itself after the election, develop new leaders and bring younger members into key party responsibilities.
In that sense, the UML’s current debate is not simply about whether “Oli should stay or go.” It is also about what the party’s leadership will look like in the years ahead and how the next generation will take on greater responsibility.
The NCP’s Own Challenges
The NCP led by Prachanda was formed by bringing together several communist groups. One of its main challenges is still to accommodate leaders and cadres who come from different political backgrounds within one organization.
The party includes leaders from the Maoist background, the former CPN (Unified Socialist) and other left-wing groups. Their political experiences and organizational practices are not the same. That makes questions about the distribution of responsibilities, the role of leaders and the party’s direction part of the larger process of building the organization.
Senior leaders, including Jhalanath Khanal, have publicly voiced dissatisfaction with the party’s functioning and leadership. Their concerns suggest that the process of bringing the different groups together has yet to settle fully.
That is why any discussion about unity with the UML also has to consider how the NCP deals with its own internal differences.
How Communist Divisions Have Changed
The history of Nepal’s communist movement shows that ideological differences played a major role in its early divisions.
Since the Communist Party of Nepal was founded in 1951, different currents within the international communist movement have influenced communist politics in the country. Debates over Marxism, Leninism and Maoism, as well as the political lines associated with the Soviet Union and China, shaped many of the disputes and splits within the communist movement.
The political environment changed after the restoration of multiparty democracy. Communist parties entered electoral politics, competed for parliamentary seats and took part in running governments.
Their disputes also changed with that transition. Ideological differences remained, but questions of leadership, organization, election strategy, government performance, power-sharing and the balance of influence within the party became increasingly important.
That is why more recent splits in Nepal’s communist movement cannot be explained only through ideology. Leadership and organizational interests have also played a major role.
The Different Journeys of the UML and Maoist Stream
The UML and the Maoist stream emerged from the same broader communist tradition, but their political journeys took different paths.
The UML embraced multiparty competition and built its organization through parliamentary politics. The Maoist movement came to electoral politics after an armed insurgency and the peace process.
Today, both operate within the Constitution and compete through elections. The political distance between them has therefore narrowed considerably. Their experiences, however, remain different, particularly in the way they built their organizations and developed their leadership.
If they were to form a single party again, the question would be how those different experiences could be accommodated within one structure.
The 2017 Unity: A Closer Relationship, Then a Broken Party
The experience of 2017 remains important when discussing possible cooperation between the UML and the Maoist Centre.
Ahead of the election that year, the two parties formed an electoral alliance, which later turned into a full party merger. The two major communist forces came together to form the Nepal Communist Party.
The arrangement did not last. Disputes over leadership authority, the running of the government, the sharing of power and the question of future leadership grew sharper. The party eventually split, and the UML and Maoist Centre went their separate ways again.
The split also led to the formation of the CPN (Unified Socialist) from within the UML. Various groups later separated from the Maoist stream as well, while some eventually came back together.
That experience showed a basic difference between forming a united party and keeping it together.
Political agreement can bring two parties to the same table and even lead to a merger. But once they become one party, questions about authority, decision-making, organizational control and power-sharing have to be settled and managed over time.
Is the Current Situation the Same as Before?
The circumstances behind the current rapprochement between the UML and NCP are not exactly the same as those surrounding the earlier merger.
Both parties are reviewing their organizations and political strategies after the latest election. There are also efforts and discussions about cooperation at the provincial level. The question of how to bring divided left-wing votes together is part of the wider political discussion.
But cooperation is not the same as party unification.
The two parties can work together in provincial governments, take common positions in Parliament or coordinate during elections. A merger would require agreement on much more—leadership, party statutes, organizational structures, political documents and the way decisions are made.
For now, therefore, the recent closeness between the two parties is better seen as expanding cooperation than as evidence of an immediate merger.
Leadership at the Heart of Any Unity Deal
If the UML and NCP move toward unification, leadership is likely to be one of the hardest issues to settle.
Oli and Prachanda are the central figures of their respective political streams. A unified party would have to decide what roles they would hold, who would exercise authority and how major decisions would be made.
The 2017 merger had two chairpersons. But the arrangement could not maintain a stable balance of authority and political influence for long.
That experience means a future merger would need to go beyond simply deciding who gets which post. It would also have to spell out how decisions are made, how disagreements are handled and how leadership eventually passes to the next generation.
The position of second-tier leaders and the role of younger politicians would also matter in shaping any new party.
The Question of Political Direction
Leadership and organization are only part of the issue. A united party would also need a common political program.
Both parties now operate within the parliamentary system and the constitutional framework. But there are still questions about how much common ground they have on socialism, economic policy, nationalism, federalism, democratic institutions and the role of the state.
How these issues are addressed in a common political document would help determine the direction of any new party.
Merging organizations alone would not settle these questions. The different groups would also need a shared understanding of the party’s political direction and how decisions would be made.
The Real Test Will Be Inside the Organization
Nepal’s communist movement has seen many rounds of unity and division. The current closeness between the UML and NCP therefore cannot be separated from that history.
Both parties are now dealing with changes in leadership and organization. What happens inside each party will shape how far their cooperation can go.
If cooperation eventually moves toward party unification, three issues will be particularly important: leadership, organizational structure and a common political program.
If the parties can reach workable arrangements on these matters, a merger would have a stronger institutional base. If not, the gap between political agreement and actually running one organization could remain.
Nepal’s communist history has already shown that announcing unity is easier than maintaining it. Political agreement may bring parties together, but keeping them together requires rules, institutions and a workable distribution of authority.
The current relationship between the UML and NCP, therefore, is less about whether a merger will happen immediately and more about whether the two parties can manage their internal differences and find enough common ground to work within a shared political and organizational framework.
How far the latest push for left unity goes will become clearer through that process.
