- Internal disputes have emerged over whether central leaders should automatically be convention delegates or undergo a grassroots electoral selection process.
- The controversy stems from new rules ending automatic representation, which supporters call democratic while opponents argue for maintaining traditional institutional continuity.
- This conflict is part of a larger legitimacy crisis between President Gagan Thapa’s leadership and a rival camp challenging recent organizational changes.
- Unresolved disagreements regarding membership and delegate selection threaten to turn the upcoming 15th General Convention into an arena for further factional confrontation.
Kathmandu, Nepal — The Nepali Congress is heading toward its 15th General Convention with preparations gathering pace, but an unresolved dispute over who should be entitled to participate as convention delegates has once again exposed the deep differences within the party.
The controversy centers on a major change introduced during the party’s special general convention in January. Under the new arrangement, central office-bearers and central members are required to come through the regular delegate-selection process rather than automatically receiving the status of general convention delegates.
A section of the party, however, has been resisting that change. Leaders from the opposing camp have argued that members of the previous Central Working Committee should retain automatic representation at the upcoming convention. The issue has become closely linked to the broader dispute over the legitimacy of the special convention and the leadership elected from it.
The disagreement is significant because the convention will determine the future direction of the country’s oldest major democratic party and could further reshape its internal balance of power.
A rule change at the heart of a larger political dispute
For years, the Nepali Congress had a provision under which central office-bearers and members could automatically become general convention delegates for one term. The arrangement had long been criticized by leaders at the grassroots level, who argued that even senior leaders should face the same electoral test as ordinary party representatives.
The special convention moved in that direction by ending automatic representation and requiring central leaders to come through the lower-level delegate-selection process. A proposal presented during the party’s internal reconciliation efforts in June also explicitly called for ending the tradition of automatic participation and requiring all members of the Central Working Committee to be elected as delegates from the ward level.
Supporters of the change see it as an attempt to make the party more democratic and accountable to grassroots members.
Their argument is straightforward: if ordinary party workers must compete for representation, senior leaders should not receive a special privilege simply because they hold a central position.
But opponents see the issue differently. They argue that leaders who were already elected to the party’s central body should not have to begin the delegate-selection process again merely to participate in the party’s highest decision-making forum.
The disagreement, therefore, is about more than a technical provision in the party statute. It reflects a deeper question about how power should be distributed between the central leadership and the party’s grassroots organization.
The dispute goes beyond the statute
The latest controversy cannot be separated from the larger political crisis that has affected the Nepali Congress since last year.
The party’s special general convention in January was held amid serious disagreement between rival camps. Gagan Thapa was subsequently elected president, and a new Central Working Committee was formed.
But the rival camp has challenged the legitimacy of the process and the recognition of the new leadership. A dispute over the party’s official status has reached the Supreme Court, with the opposing side arguing that the special convention and subsequent recognition of the new Central Working Committee were not consistent with the party’s statute.
That legal and political dispute has given the delegate issue an additional dimension.
For one side, automatic recognition of the previous Central Working Committee as convention delegates is a question of continuity and representation. For the other, allowing former central leaders to retain special status would undermine the new rules designed to make representation more competitive and uniform.
Preparing for the next convention amid unresolved differences
The Central Working Committee meeting that began on August 9 is taking place against this complicated background.
The meeting is discussing preparations for the 15th General Convention, the drafting of regulations and election guidelines, updating and distributing party membership, and the formation of a convention preparation committee. Contemporary political developments, provincial governments, organizational matters, and the government’s first 100 days are also on the agenda.
The 15th General Convention is scheduled to take place in Kathmandu from October 2 to 5, 2026.
With the convention only weeks away, questions over membership and delegate selection are becoming increasingly important.
Membership records determine who can participate in the organizational process, while delegate selection ultimately determines who will have a vote in choosing the party’s leadership and shaping its political direction.
That makes the current dispute particularly sensitive.
Membership has become another fault line
The question of active membership has also emerged as a major point of disagreement between rival camps.
The establishment side has maintained that active membership must be updated and that the same rules should apply to everyone. Leaders on this side have argued that previous central members should not be given a permanent special privilege simply because they once held central positions.
The opposing camp, meanwhile, has argued for recognition of the previous Central Working Committee in the convention process and has questioned aspects of the membership-updating process.
This disagreement matters because membership is not simply an administrative issue inside the Nepali Congress. It can determine who participates in the convention process and, ultimately, who exercises influence over the party’s future leadership.
A party trying to move forward while looking back
The Congress is now facing an unusual situation.
It has a newly elected president and a new Central Working Committee, but a section of the old leadership continues to challenge the process that brought the new leadership to power. At the same time, the new leadership is moving ahead with preparations for another major convention.
President Gagan Thapa has said the party will move ahead with the convention while seeking to bring everyone together. Addressing the Central Working Committee meeting, he also emphasized that the Congress would continue to play the role of the main opposition while cooperating with the government on national issues when necessary.
The challenge is whether that message of inclusion can be translated into an internal political settlement.
The party has already experienced a serious split in organizational authority. If disputes over membership, delegate selection and the legitimacy of the special convention remain unresolved, the upcoming convention could become another arena for factional confrontation rather than an opportunity to rebuild unity.
The government’s first 100 days add another challenge
The Central Working Committee is also reviewing the government’s first 100 days and discussing the Congress’s role as the main opposition.
This gives the party an opportunity to evaluate the government’s performance and establish a clear opposition agenda. President Thapa has said the Congress will cooperate with the government on issues of national importance but will also continue to question the government and hold it accountable.
However, the party’s ability to present a strong and consistent opposition agenda will depend partly on how effectively it manages its own internal divisions.
A party preoccupied with disputes over its own legitimacy, membership and leadership may find it difficult to convince voters that it is ready to provide a coherent alternative at the national level.
The real test is unity, not simply the convention date
The Nepali Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that it can survive internal disagreements. The deeper question is whether those disagreements can be managed through institutional mechanisms rather than prolonged factional confrontation.
The current dispute over automatic convention representation illustrates the problem.
On one side is the argument for greater grassroots democracy: senior leaders should face the same electoral process as other party members. On the other is the argument for institutional continuity: a person elected to the central leadership should naturally have a place in the party’s highest forum.
Neither position is simply about procedure. Both are connected to the distribution of political influence.
That is why the dispute could become more consequential as the October convention approaches.
A crucial test for Gagan Thapa’s leadership
For President Gagan Thapa and the new Central Working Committee, the upcoming convention will be an important test.
The immediate challenge is to complete the organizational preparations, settle membership issues, establish clear delegate-selection rules and ensure that the convention is accepted as legitimate across the party.
The larger challenge is political: can the new leadership bring together a party that remains divided over its own recent history?
The Congress cannot simply erase its internal differences. Democratic parties naturally contain competing ideas and leadership ambitions. But those differences need a credible institutional framework in which losing sides can accept decisions and winning sides can accommodate dissent.
If the Congress succeeds in creating such a framework, the current dispute could eventually become part of a broader process of organizational reform.
If it fails, however, the October convention risks becoming another chapter in the party’s prolonged internal struggle.
For the Nepali Congress, therefore, the coming weeks are about much more than preparing a general convention. They will determine whether the party can turn a period of deep internal division into an opportunity for renewal—or allow those divisions to continue shaping its future.
