Parmeshwar Devkota

Political gurus claim that a party cannot survive for long without having a specific political ideology. Such a political thought can be summarised as a set of beliefs and values that a party adopts to compete in the society to bring positive social, economic, and other timely changes. If a political party sets relevant political ideology, and starts working accordingly, it becomes popular in the society. However, political parties are susceptible to factional infighting even after settling the ideological contents.
As for example, the Nepali Congress (NC), after arduous and dedicational struggles, set the ideological framework. Its ideology is based on multiparty democracy, rule of law, civil liberties, human rights, adult franchise, periodic elections and freedom of press. Because of the timely ideologies and leaders’ commitments, the party became popular among Nepali people and garnered a sweeping majority.
But, the then prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala dissolved parliament in 1994 and announced the mid-term polls. The late Koirala resorted to that move due to widening disputes within the party. Former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba also did the same in in 2002. He was expelled from the party for his controversial step. Though Deuba formed a new party with the same name in June, the Election Commission did not recognise his faction as the NC. So Deuba registered the Nepali Congress-Democratic (NC-D). He later returned to the mother party.
Leaders of Nepal Communist Party (NCP) may have to follow the same path as the NC leaders did. The NCP has expressed its commitment to socialism-oriented democratic norms, competitive multiparty democracy, civil liberties, and fundamental rights, among others.
Therefore, the present conflict between the two factions, each led by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda and Madhav Kumar Nepal, is neither ideological nor political. It appears to be personality clashes over power and posts. The leaders associated with both factions have been indulged in exchanging venomous accusations not on the ground of ideology. Had their accusations been political, they would not have gone for personal attacks.
A leader believes that all members in the group have an essential dignity, and accepts the values of cooperation, discussion and consensus. A politician, in retrospect, should assess his/her works but the leaders of the both NCP factions are neither looking to the people nor evaluating themselves. They see only their hard-core followers around them. The voters and the sovereign citizens are not enjoying their speeches full of hate and animosity.
Both the factions seem to be forgetting that they will have to undergo an acid test in the future in which their actual shape and size will be determined.
However, there is a vast difference between NCP factions and the then NC and NC-D. The NCP factions are showing aggressive attitude and low public decency. It seems that they are about to get involved in physical brawls. But, the cadres of NC cadres and NC-Democratic had not shown such hostile behaviour with each other. So, they got adjusted easily. Therefore, one of the NCP factions will have to face the same fate as of NC-D. So, the two groups of NCP should tone down their belligerent rhetoric like NC and NC-D did. Sober and friendlier approach will enable them to come together in the future.