By Our Political Analyst
The private meeting between Rastriya Swatantra Party Chair Rabi Lamichhane and Deputy Chair and Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle in Dhulikhel this weekend has naturally fueled speculation. Leaders often meet away from Kathmandu, but the timing matters. The government has completed its first 100 days. The party has just wrapped up its first general convention. Internal complaints are growing louder. Against that backdrop, a closed-door discussion looks less like a holiday and more like an attempt to assess a party entering its first serious internal crisis.
The immediate trigger is not a single dispute. It is the steady buildup of mistrust. Questions over the government’s performance, disagreements over the party statute, unease over constitutional proposals, dissatisfaction with the convention, and differing views on court rulings have merged into one larger problem These issues have created the impression that the party lacks a common direction.
Every new political force eventually faces the transition from campaigning to governing. Winning public support is one challenge. Managing competing ambitions inside the party is another. RSP now finds itself confronting that reality.
The controversy surrounding the amended party statute deserves particular attention. A provision allowing the party chair to remove even the parliamentary party leader for failing to follow the chair’s instructions shifts the balance of power sharply toward one office. Such authority may appear useful during crises. It may help enforce discipline and prevent prolonged factional battles.
Yet concentration of power often creates the very instability it seeks to prevent. A parliamentary leader is not merely an employee of the party chair. The position carries its own democratic legitimacy because lawmakers choose their parliamentary leadership to represent them inside Parliament. Allowing one individual to remove that leader through internal authority weakens collective decision making and invites accusations that loyalty matters more than independent judgment.
Political parties certainly require discipline. Without it, governments become dysfunctional. But discipline and unquestioned obedience are not the same thing. Healthy parties encourage disagreement before decisions are made, then expect unity once those decisions are finalized. If members fear removal simply for questioning the leadership, debate moves behind closed doors, mistrust deepens, and factions become permanent.
Ironically, RSP rose by criticizing exactly this style of centralized leadership in older parties. It promised internal democracy, transparency, and institutional decision making. Any perception that it is adopting the same practices risks damaging the party’s strongest political asset, its claim that it represents a different political culture.
The government’s performance has also become a source of internal strain. The handling of landless squatters, questions over policing, controversy surrounding judicial appointments, and criticism of investigations in corruption cases have exposed different approaches within the party. Some leaders defend institutional reform. Others question whether government agencies are making legally sustainable decisions. These differences are natural in any governing party. The problem begins when they remain unresolved or are interpreted as signs of competing power centers.
The disagreement over Swarnim Wagle’s proposal to restructure federalism reveals another weakness. Major constitutional questions require broad internal consultation before becoming official party documents. When such proposals surprise lawmakers representing different regions and communities, political suspicion grows quickly. The issue is no longer only about federalism. It becomes about who shapes the party’s ideological direction.
The delayed review of the general convention has further added to frustration. Every first convention produces organizational flaws. Delegates expect an honest assessment afterward. Avoiding that conversation allows rumors to replace facts and dissatisfaction to harden into resentment.
The greatest risk for RSP is not an immediate split. The greater danger is gradual erosion of trust. Political parties rarely collapse because of one dramatic event. They weaken when leaders stop believing internal mechanisms can resolve disagreements fairly. Once that confidence disappears, every appointment, policy decision, and organizational change is viewed through the lens of factional competition.
RSP still has time to avoid that outcome. The party enjoys a public mandate that many new political forces never receive. It has young leaders, public visibility, and representation across different sectors. Those strengths should encourage greater internal openness, not tighter centralization.
The immediate priority should be restoring confidence in the party’s own institutions. A comprehensive review of the general convention should be held without delay. Contested provisions in the statute deserve open debate before formal registration.
Leadership decisions should be explained instead of defended through silence. Policy differences should be resolved through structured discussion rather than competing public narratives. Most importantly, the leadership must remember why voters placed their trust in RSP. The public did not vote simply for new faces. It voted for a different way of doing politics. If the party begins to mirror the internal culture of the traditional parties it once criticized, disappointment will arrive much faster than electoral success did.
Login to add a comment