How Will Nepal Communist Party Discipline Unrecognized Central Members?

March 23, Kathmandu – The latest remarks by Nepal Communist Party Coordinator Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda regarding the election results have drawn considerable attention both within the party ranks and across the national political landscape.

At an event held last Friday at the party’s central headquarters in Parisdanda, Prachanda issued a strong warning, threatening disciplinary action against central members who reportedly voted for the Rastriya Swatantra Party (Raswapa).

The event, attended by leaders from affiliated organizations, also saw the former Prime Minister Prachanda presenting the party’s future roadmap. Yet the main focus of concern was his threat of disciplinary measures against those central members who allegedly supported Raswapa.

“Action will begin, starting right from the central members. Reports have surfaced that some central members voted for Raswapa,” Prachanda stated, “Bring us concrete evidence—who did not campaign in their area? Who was seen voting for Raswapa? We will take decisive action against them.”

Given the election outcome where the party, formed through the unification of 25 parties or groups, won only 17 seats, many leaders naturally focus on Prachanda’s warning. “The unity campaign was run with a clear objective, and many leaders were aligned under it. The results, however, were not as expected,” a senior leader commented. “Without serious review, moving forward is not feasible. The message from the party coordinator must be taken seriously.”

The Nepal Communist Party, which united roughly two dozen groups including the CPN (Maoist Centre) and CPN (Unified Socialist), boasts an array of top leaders. Former Prime Ministers Prachanda, Madhav Nepal, and Jhalnath Khanal are part of the leadership, alongside numerous former Deputy Prime Ministers, Home Ministers, and Cabinet members.

These leaders, based on their unity, had indicated intentions to lead or actively participate in government formation after the elections. However, the Rastriya Swatantra Party won close to a two-thirds majority independently.

Preparations Underway for a Review Meeting

This election result almost certainly marks the end of Prachanda’s continuous presence in power since participating in the interim government of 2006 (2063 BS).

With the party limited to 17 seats—eight in the direct election and nine proportional—the Nepal Communist Party now faces a difficult situation. Even if Raswapa faces internal crises, seeking to lead government formation could prove a major challenge.

“The expected result did not materialize. Now, we will move forward with a review and organizational restructuring plan,” stated leader Dr. Beduram Bhusal. “A review meeting will likely convene soon.”

However, leaders remain unclear about which specific committee will hold the meeting. “It could be the coordination committee or the secretariat,” Bhusal added. Yet, membership for both committees has yet to be finalized.

Only Prachanda and Madhav Nepal have confirmed leadership roles within the Nepal Communist Party. As coordinator and co-coordinator respectively, they have been central decision-makers. For the February 21 election, the party submitted a list of 138 central members to the Election Commission, but leaders clarify this was a technical list only.

Uncertainty Surrounds Central Members’ Identities

During the party formation process, a proposal existed to create a secretariat of 125 members, alongside a coordination committee comprising top leaders. However, decisions regarding the individual members have yet to be made.

“As the unification drive dragged on and more leaders joined, no clear designation or committee assignments were established,” a former official explained. “The coordinators and co-coordinators lose track of some group leaders.”

This means the party has not finalized even the executive leadership composition, which explains why Prachanda issued the disciplinary warning. Yet many within the party tend to interpret his threat as a political statement rather than a concrete measure. “If there is proof of someone responsible for the election campaign supporting another candidate, then that person should reconsider their party responsibilities. But it is unlikely there will be a witch-hunt to find out exactly who voted for Raswapa,” another leader remarked.

A major issue remains the lack of clear identification of central members within the party. Although plans were set to enroll 2,500 members as central leaders, many remain unfamiliar even among themselves. During the unification of eight groups, central member oaths were taken virtually since not all could be present at the Parisdanda headquarters.

Thus, rather than hunting down individuals for discipline, leaders emphasize the need for a comprehensive review of the election defeat. “It is not about who voted or did not vote, but fundamentally why the party lost,” they said. “We must assess why we failed to effectively educate society.”

Leadership Must Take Responsibility for Party’s Defeat

Leaders believe that disciplining some members based on suspicion or proof will not break the party. Instead, the root cause of defeat should be found within the leadership ranks. “Comrade Prachanda himself confused workers by making contradictory remarks during the election,” one leader said. “Statements about possible alliances with Congress, CPN-UML, or Raswapa left workers baffled.”

One candidate from the party noted that Prachanda’s comments did not create a conducive environment for unity. “When Prachanda said it might be possible to join forces with Balen tomorrow, many undecided voters may have cast their ballots for Raswapa—or at least that is what happened,” he added.

Ashesh Ghimire, candidate from Jhapa-1, urged focusing on party-level issues rather than blaming individual setbacks for the electoral defeat. “Communists have enjoyed majority support for decades, but landless peasants have not benefited materially. Only the party has changed; the leadership rhetoric is the same,” Ghimire remarked. “The Communist Party needs a serious introspection to understand why the election outcome was unfavorable.”

According to his analysis, the election marked a defeat for Marxism, with postmodernist ideologies prevailing. “When Communist parties distance themselves from class-based ideology, it opens the door to postmodernist attacks,” Ghimire said. “This weakens organizational and collective power, elevates individual glorification, and ultimately impacts election results.” He suggested that failing to understand the attacks from forces who formed parties in opposition to traditional parties may be at the core of this problem and must be investigated.