Youth leaders push for change in leftist parties, old guards remain silent

KATHMANDU: After suffering a humiliating defeat in the March 5 elections, second- and third-generation leaders of major leftist parties have begun calling for a review of the election results and leadership transition.

However, the top leadership has shown little willingness to conduct a review or discuss leadership handover. As a result, younger leaders have started discussing alternatives, including broader left unity.

Former CPN-UML Vice Chairperson Surendra Pandey has said the party leadership must be ready for a review. He said the UML’s position in the next election will shrink further if the situation continues.

UML Deputy General Secretary Yogesh Bhattarai has begun collecting suggestions from party leaders and cadres to move forward with a new commitment toward unity, transformation, restructuring, and revival of the party. “The full results of the election have already been released. The outcome has dealt a major blow to UML. Why did a party like UML—with strong popularity, a solid mass base, and a robust organization—reach this state? This must be reviewed objectively,” Bhattarai said.

These two leaders advocated for leadership change and transformation during the recent UML general convention as well. However, they became numerically weaker after KP Sharma Oli was reelected party chair. Following the party’s poor electoral showing, they have once again raised the issue of transformation and leadership handover.

Under Oli’s leadership, the party won just nine first-past-the-post seats and 16 proportional representation (PR) seats in the recent election. In 2022, that party had won 78 seats.

“We failed to align with the sentiments of Gen Z voters, which increased dissatisfaction toward our party,” Pandey said.

Bhattarai also added that UML’s status quo approach allowed those raising popular issues to win elections.

Calls for transformation have been louder among younger leaders than within the party’s top ranks. Another UML leader, Prakash Paudel, said immediate transformation is necessary to save both the party and the movement. He suggested dissolving all party committees and renewing all memberships. “There are reports that even organized members did not vote for the party’s candidates,” Paudel said. “In such a situation, everything should be renewed, and the party should move forward in a new way.”

Another UML leader, Samik Badal, said leadership transformation is now essential. “First, we must review the election. The review should include leadership transfer,” he said.

Earlier, UML Vice Chairperson Bishnu Paudel had also called for party restructuring. But he has remained silent recently. While the older generation appears reluctant, younger leaders have become increasingly vocal. UML Chairperson Oli has yet to comment on calls for party restructuring.

Meanwhile, the Nepali Communist Party (NCP), which had merged with more than 22 parties and groups, including ahead of the election, also failed to secure expected results. It won eight seats under the first-past-the-post system and received around 811,000 proportional representation votes. However, the party has also not conducted a formal review of its electoral performance.

Within the party, younger leaders are calling for generational change, while party coordinator Pushpa Kamal Dahal has instead raised the issue of disciplinary action against party leaders and cadres who voted for rival candidates.

“This is not about repeating the past NCP. We must envision a transformed NCP in today’s changed context and move forward,” NCP leader Ranjit Tamang, who suffered defeat in Jhapa-5 seat in the March 5 election, said. “We need not just review, but a rigorous and honest review.”

Leaders like Tamang have also begun raising the issue of left unity. However, they believe it is unlikely as long as the current leadership remains unchanged.

According to party insiders, Dahal has avoided calling a review meeting partly to prevent leadership questions from surfacing.

“He has said he won the election himself, but has not explained why the party lost,” said one NCP leader. “He is using his personal victory to shift blame for the party’s defeat onto central committee members.”

Dahal had earlier claimed he won as a guardian figure of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which won near two-thirds majority, after being elected from Rukum East.

NCP leader Dhanraj Bastabik warned that the party cannot move forward if the leadership celebrates its own victory and avoids calls for generational change. He added that transformation, generational shift, and leadership handover have become unavoidable in the party.

“When the then CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN (Unified Socialist) merged to form NCP, they had agreed to hold a unity convention within six months. But even as the deadline approaches, there is no discussion of such a convention. This shows a tendency to cling to power,” he said, adding that leaders like Dahal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhala Nath Khanal, and Bam Dev Gautam must seriously assess their current relevance in Nepali politics.

No transformation without leadership initiative

So far, only a few leaders in UML and NCP have raised the issue of review. Other leftist parties such as Rastriya Janamorcha (RJM) and the Nepal Workers and Peasants Party (NWPP) have not even entered the review phase. NCP leaders have attributed their defeat to the RSP wave, while leaders of RJM and NWPP have blamed foreign forces.

Former NCP leader Haribol Gajurel said change is unlikely under the current leadership. Acting Chair of CPN (Unified) Ghanshyam Bhusal also argued that unity is impossible unless the older generation is ready to step aside.

“The generation that should speak up or reform itself is silent. How can transformation be possible?” Bhusal asked.

Gajurel called for a leadership aged 20-25 to revive the left movement. “The current leadership is entirely compromised. We supported the same generation, but now young people must come forward,” he said.

He added that the recent election reflected a Gen Z-driven uprising, with young people aged 20–30 driving change through street movements that toppled the government and brought in new leadership. “Now, this generation must also revive the left movement,” he said.

Declining vote share, unchanged leadership

Leftist parties have seen a steady decline in electoral strength. In the 1959 election, they secured just four seats. By 1991, this had risen to 82 seats, with around 2.6 million votes (about 40%). UML alone had won 79 seats at the time.

In the 1994 midterm election, leftist parties secured 99 seats with 2.62 million votes. In 1999, they won 78 seats with over 3.5 million votes.

In the 2008 Constituent Assembly election, leftist parties won 372 seats with over 6.2 million proportional representation (PR) votes. But in the 2013 election, this dropped to 289 seats and 4.4 million votes. In 2017, they won 176 seats with over 4.6 million votes, and in 2022, 123 seats with around 4.44 million votes.

In the March 5 election, however, leftist parties secured only 42 seats, with PR votes limited to around 2.3 million—just 21.5% of the total.

Despite this decline, leadership has largely remained unchanged since 2014. Oli has led UML since then, while Dahal has been at the helm of the Maoist party since the late 1980s. Other leaders such as Mohan Baidya, Netra Bikram Chand “Biplav,” Mohan Bikram Singh, and Narayan Man Bijukchhe have also held leadership positions for decades.