- CPN (UML) Chairman KP Sharma Oli faces internal pressure to step down following a sharp decline in the party’s electoral support and organizational strength.
- Oli dismissed critics as "hooligans," asserting that leadership changes must follow formal procedures while demanding strict discipline from all party members.
- Dissenting leaders advocate for broader restructuring and accountability, while Oli prioritizes party unity and resistance against what he describes as internal "anarchy."
ILAM — A growing dispute inside Nepal’s main opposition force, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), is increasingly becoming a test of both its leadership and its ability to change with the times.
Party Chairman KP Sharma Oli, who has led the UML through several major political battles, is facing mounting pressure from a significant section of the party for organizational reform and a review of his leadership. What began as criticism over the party’s electoral performance and organizational weaknesses has gradually turned into a direct debate over whether Oli should continue as chairman.
Oli, however, is showing little sign of stepping aside.
Addressing a meeting of the Democratic Indigenous Nationalities Federation in Fikkal, Ilam, on Saturday, he dismissed the growing internal campaign as the work of “a few hooligans” and warned that indiscipline would not be tolerated.
“The party has not split. A few hooligans have merely created a disturbance,” Oli said, arguing that those who remain in the UML must respect its rules and organizational discipline.
His remarks underline how sharply the two sides now see the situation differently. For Oli and his supporters, the current campaign threatens party unity at a difficult political moment. For those demanding reform, however, the debate is about correcting weaknesses that have become increasingly difficult to ignore.
From electoral disappointment to leadership question
At the heart of the dispute is the UML’s declining electoral support.
Oli himself acknowledged that the fall in the party’s vote was serious. Referring to the decline from around 2.8 million votes to about 1.4 million, he said the party could not ignore such a setback.
“Receiving only 1.4 million votes where we once received 2.8 million is a serious matter,” he said.
Oli placed much of the responsibility on party members, saying the UML had a large organizational network but was not receiving corresponding support at the ballot box.
He criticized members who remain affiliated with the UML but vote for other parties, saying such behavior was unacceptable.
But inside the party, the same electoral decline has prompted a different question: if the party has lost such a large portion of its support, who should take responsibility?
That question has gradually brought the spotlight to the leadership itself.
A growing group of UML leaders and cadres has argued that the party needs more than minor organizational adjustments. They want a broader restructuring of the party, changes in its working style and a fresh approach to leadership.
For some, that reform has increasingly come to mean a change at the top.
Oli sees a threat; critics see a need for change
The most sensitive part of the dispute is the campaign to remove Oli from the chairmanship.
Oli has strongly rejected the effort, describing discussions about his removal as an act of indiscipline.
“Can they sit in the party office canteen, drink tea and eat samosas and say, ‘Let’s remove the chairman’? This kind of anarchy cannot continue,” he said.
He also dismissed the significance of signatures reportedly being collected in support of leadership change, arguing that party leadership can only be changed through the proper organizational process.
His position is supported by a straightforward argument: he was elected chairman through the party’s established process, and his critics cannot replace him simply through an informal campaign.
But the reform camp sees the issue differently.
For these leaders, questioning the chairman is not necessarily an attempt to weaken the party. They argue that a political organization must be able to examine its own mistakes, including the performance of its top leadership.
That difference in interpretation has made compromise increasingly difficult.
The disagreement is no longer limited to the grassroots
Another reason the current dispute has attracted attention is that the criticism is not coming only from ordinary cadres or younger leaders.
Senior UML figures have also become part of the debate over the party’s direction. The involvement of influential leaders has made it harder for the leadership to dismiss the reform campaign as a marginal protest.
The internal discussion has also exposed a complicated question of succession. Even among those who believe the party needs new leadership, there is no single agreement over who should replace Oli or how a transition should take place.
Some leaders appear to favor gradual change, while others are pushing for a more immediate restructuring.
That means the UML is dealing with two separate questions at once: whether change is necessary and who should control that change.
Oli responds with a message of discipline
As pressure has increased, Oli has increasingly emphasized discipline.
He warned party members against publicly attacking the organization or its leadership, particularly through social media.
“If you want to remain in the party, you must follow discipline,” he said.
He also warned that those who continued to disregard party rules could face action under the party statute.
The message is clearly aimed at preventing the reform campaign from developing into an uncontrolled internal revolt. But it also carries a political risk: disciplinary action against prominent dissenting leaders could deepen the very divisions the leadership is trying to contain.
For ordinary party workers, the dispute can therefore be unsettling. Many joined the UML because of its strong organization and clear political identity. Watching senior leaders openly disagree over the party’s direction raises uncertainty about what comes next.
Unity is still Oli’s strongest argument
Oli has repeatedly presented party unity as the immediate priority.
He reminded party workers that the UML had survived previous splits and difficult political periods. He argued that the party should not weaken itself through internal conflict when it is already facing pressure from political opponents.
“We are in a difficult and challenging situation,” he said. “But this Central Committee, elected by the general convention, will not run away from its responsibility.”
He also made it clear that he does not intend to leave simply because some leaders are demanding his removal.
“I am not someone who runs away by throwing away responsibility when the party is in difficulty,” Oli said.
His message to supporters was therefore one of resistance: remain calm, stay united and do not allow internal disagreement to turn into a party-wide breakdown.
But unity alone may not be enough
The deeper challenge for the UML is that the current dispute cannot easily be solved by simply telling both sides to remain united.
The reform camp is raising questions that many political parties eventually have to confront: How should a party respond when its electoral support falls? How should senior leaders be held accountable? How much room should there be for internal criticism? And when should a long-serving leader make way for a new generation?
Oli's answer so far has emphasized discipline, organizational procedure and the authority of the party’s elected structures.
His critics are emphasizing accountability, renewal and the need to respond to changing public expectations.
Neither side can easily ignore the other.
If the leadership treats every criticism as indiscipline, it could push more leaders toward the reform camp. But if the reform movement seeks to remove the chairman without a broadly accepted institutional process, it could deepen factionalism and damage the party’s unity.
A defining moment for the UML
The coming internal meetings are likely to be crucial. They could determine whether the current disagreement develops into a negotiated reform process or a prolonged struggle over Oli’s leadership.
The next major test will be whether the UML can create enough political space for its leaders to disagree without turning disagreement into personal confrontation.
For Oli, the challenge is to show that his leadership can still rebuild the party’s electoral strength and accommodate demands for change.
For the reform camp, the challenge is to demonstrate that its campaign is about rebuilding the UML rather than simply replacing one leader with another.
Ultimately, the debate is bigger than Oli's position alone. It is about what kind of political party the UML wants to be in the years ahead.
The party can emerge from the current dispute stronger if it uses the moment to honestly examine its weaknesses, listen to its cadres and voters, and establish a credible process for leadership renewal.
But if the disagreement continues to be treated simply as a battle between “discipline” and “indiscipline,” the underlying frustrations may remain unresolved.
For now, Oli has made his position clear: he does not intend to surrender his leadership under pressure. The reform camp, meanwhile, appears equally determined to keep the debate alive.
The question facing the UML is no longer whether there is dissatisfaction inside the party. The real question is whether that dissatisfaction can be turned into meaningful reform—or whether it will become another deep factional conflict in Nepal’s already divided political landscape.
