On Thursday, Nepali Congress General Secretaries Gagan Thapa and Bishwa Prakash Sharma issued a joint statement announcing the postponement of the regular General Convention and declaring that the option for a Special General Convention is now open. This move toward a Special Convention has created a stir within the party.
There is significant interest in how the party establishment will respond to this move. Against this backdrop, Nepalkhabar talked to Prakash Sharan Mahat, a leader close to President Sher Bahadur Deuba. Excerpts:
The two General Secretaries issued a joint statement postponing the regular convention and opening the door for a Special General Convention. What is your take on this?
A party operates under the leadership of its President. Decisions are made by the party as a whole. Neither I, nor the two General Secretaries, have the authority to make such decisions independently.
Regarding the regular convention, it was scheduled by a party decision. Even two days ago, a meeting of the Central Work Execution Committee was held. They did not propose a postponement or a Special Convention during that meeting. They didn't say, "We can't hold the regular convention, so we propose this alternative and seek its passage." A Special Convention doesn’t just happen because they say so, nor is a regular convention postponed just because they wish it.
The regular convention will happen. It simply hasn't occurred on the previously fixed date. This is because that date was proposed by the General Secretaries themselves, even though they knew the timeframe was tight and difficult. We agreed to it, thinking we should try if they felt it was possible. The General Secretaries were also responsible for coordinating the finalization of active membership, which is a prerequisite. Since the membership list couldn't be finalized, the convention could not proceed.
One cannot shift the blame to others for this. It is a collective responsibility. They should have admitted, "We couldn't hold it for these reasons; we will do it at another time." Instead of taking that path, claiming a Special Convention will be held because of others' failures serves no purpose. It only weakens the party on the eve of the general elections.
Does this signal that the party is heading toward a split?
No. We want the party to remain united and achieve a good result in the general elections. We finalized the Proportional Representation (PR) list through consultation with everyone, and our goal is to do the same for the direct election candidates. Only the General Secretaries can answer what their specific goals are. However, their current actions are not appropriate from any angle—neither for the party's interests nor according to the party statute. The general cadres and representatives do not support a Special Convention at this time.
They have reportedly even "booked a hall" for the Special Convention. Since they have initiated the process, have they consulted with the President about this?
Their statements have just come out. There is no question of taking this move positively.
What is the solution then?
The solution is to sit down and discuss within our existing party mechanisms. A proposal must be brought forward, and the mechanism must decide. How can a solution be found by taking a different path? They need to come to the table and discuss what needs to be done. If everyone finds a proposal appropriate during discussions, then a decision can be made.
Based on their activities, what path do you feel they are trying to take?
This will only lead the party toward weakness and internal discord. The majority of party members are not in favor of this.
But they previously claimed to have the signatures of 54% of the convention representatives in favor of a Special Convention. If a majority stands with them, why is it difficult for the President and the establishment to face it?
What was the context and timing of that 54%? That situation does not exist now. There are many questions regarding those signatures. They haven't been verified. Without verification, that process cannot move forward, and a Special Convention cannot be called. Verification would determine exactly how many are in favor, but they haven't pursued that themselves. Since they had agreed to proceed with the regular convention, we have been working together.
The schedule stated the regular convention would start on December 31, but it didn't. The party headquarters didn't issue a formal notice of postponement or a change of date. Doesn't this show irresponsibility on the part of the party leadership?
Aren't all leaders, including the two General Secretaries, responsible for this? It had been informally communicated everywhere why it couldn't happen. Rather than making a formal decision to postpone, the discussion was centered on proposing a new schedule once active membership was finalized. Without resolving the membership issue, even ward-level conventions couldn't happen.
It is true that a formal notice should have been given. However, the General Secretaries are the ones in the position to issue such notices. They didn't raise the issue of giving notice during the CWEC meeting. If no one raised it, who is to blame? At other times, it is argued that the Secretariat is in the hands of the General Secretaries. Should they not take responsibility for the Secretariat failing to notify that the convention wouldn't start on December 31?
There was a middle-ground suggestion to hold only ward and regional conventions to select representatives and then move to the General Convention. Could that be a point of discussion, or will you move to counter the General Secretaries?
Even for a shortened process, you still need to finalize the active membership. Has that been done? Without that, you can't have ward conventions. Without ward conventions, you can't have regional conventions. Without regional conventions, you can't have central representatives. And without representatives, you can't have a General Convention. This is basic logic. Even with a fast-track process, completing it by mid-January was not possible.
So, is NC now going to split into two factions over the issue of the convention?
Most convention representatives view such a development as unnatural on the eve of a general election. One must wonder what their true intention is in raising this and pushing for a Special Convention.
.
