26 Chait, Kathmandu. UML remained neutral in the election process while Shram Sanskriti Party MP Rubi Kumari was being elected as the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. He stood in favor and not against.

UML had been standing with a clear line on all political fronts for the last decade. However, he took a policy of neutrality in the election of the Deputy Speaker for no particular reason. If he could not accept the candidacy of others, he could also give his own candidacy.

Instead of moving towards that, UML used the provision of neutrality in the Parliament Rules. The policy of neutrality taken by him is not against the rules, but he lost an opportunity to send a message from this incident.

Why did UML remain neutral? UML Member of Parliament Mohammad Istiaq Rai says, ‘In the case of the Speaker, the same was done to support the Deputy Speaker, so we remained neutral.’

According to him, the UML has objections to the way the ruling party is currently treating the opposition parties. It seems that UML, which is dissatisfied with President KP Sharma Oli’s prejudicial detention, is trying to change its anger.

Sometimes such moments come in parliamentary politics, from which the ideological height, political maturity and vision of the party can be measured at once. However, this policy of neutrality has narrowed his vision. An opportunity to convey a message to a larger community has been lost.

UML’s support for 25-year-old Rubikumari Thakur for Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives was huge.

Rubikumar was not the only candidate standing to become the Deputy Speaker. His candidacy had a broad message. She rose from a marginalized community in Madhesh, came to national politics struggling from a low economic background, and was the face of the Genji generation.

Ruby, who became a proportional member of parliament from the Labor Culture Party, was supported by the Rashtriya Swatantra Party, and she became the main contender for the post of Deputy Speaker with the prior support of two-thirds of the votes.

The main parties in the parliament, the RSVP, the Congress and the CPN stood in his favor. If UML had also stood in his favor, there would have been a chance of unanimity among the Deputy Speakers. The message of acceptance of representation, inclusiveness and leadership of the new generation could have gone above party interests.

However, the UMA took a different path and chose neutrality.

Neutrality in politics is not always the path to fairness. That is another form of rejection. There was widespread support for Rubikumari and when she was elected by a two-thirds majority, the UML’s position was not going to lead to any results. By supporting him, he could have taken ownership of the position where he had to play a neutral role like the Deputy Speaker.

If the UML had supported Ruby, it would not only have put one person in office but also sent a message of cooperation to the new parties in Parliament. He showed a positive attitude towards the new generation. Respect for the marginal communities of Madhesh was also evident.

More importantly, it could have refuted the accusations against the UML of being old-fashioned and insensitive to the youth.

However, UML did not choose that path.

There is no political or ideological reason why UML, which accepted DP Aryal of RSVP for the Speaker’s post, could not stand in support of Rubi Kumari of labor culture as Deputy Speaker.

Even if it is considered to be the main competitor politically, RSVP is a competitor of UML. The labor culture of 7 seats that came to parliament this time is not the main competitor of UML. He could have given a message of cooperation with the new party in the parliament.

Even now, UML is accused of being a force that is indifferent to the youth and does not want to be transformed. Even though there was a great demand for a change in leadership, the old leadership was approved by the convention. He has not changed his policy even after suffering a big blow in the election.

When the young MP Suhang Nembang tried to become the leader of the parliamentary party, he did not find any proponents or supporters. The incident of Suhang not getting any proponents and supporters and now being neutral in the case of Genji generation representative Rubikumari in the parliament showed that the culture of accepting the new generation easily within the UML is not yet strong.

Ruby belongs to a low class farmer family from Majhelia in Dhanusa. His father Shogarath Thakur has been working abroad for 25 years. Mother is a housewife. She was earning Rs 20,000 per month after completing her diploma in engineering.

His entry into politics was not through any established power structure. She coincidentally joined the party led by Hark Sampang that opened before the election. Being impressed by Sampang, she joined his campaign and asked for votes in the election.

She had the opportunity to speak only once in the meeting of the House of Representatives and announced that she would work to solve problems like dowry system, child marriage and unemployment. She also wants to continue her studies (Bachelor Engineering) along with her responsibilities as an MP. That is why he is motivated by the desire to do small things, not a big political project. He also has the goal of becoming capable in the long term without being limited to political positions.

Looking at this background, it is said that UML has been doing politics for the liberation of the class for years, Ruby was the representative of that class.

To support such a character would have been like stifling a new possibility. UML could have conveyed the message that it is an inclusive, liberal and sensitive party towards the new generation.

However, UML failed.

If UML did not agree on Ruby’s candidacy, then it would have taken a stand by putting up its own candidacy. It was considered as a political freedom to reject a candidate supported by the RP, even if it supported the RP. Because UML had political cooperation with RPP in the past. RPPA and UML had formed an alliance in some places in Vitma elections. However, UML did not choose any clear option.

What voters expect from political parties is clear perception, clear decision and clear vision. While neutrality may sometimes seem like a safe option, in the long run it signals uncertainty and weakness.

By endorsing Ruby, the UML could have said it was ready to communicate with the new generation, committed to inclusive politics and would have had an important opportunity to repair its tarnished image.

Nepal’s politics is currently in transition. There is not only competition between old parties and new forces, but also a battle of viewpoints. New and old comments are mixed. There is division between young and old generation due to age.

In times like these, even small decisions mean a lot. The matter of selecting the Deputy Speaker may seem small, but it was an opportunity to show the character and priority of the party, which UML could not utilize. In politics, lost opportunities are sometimes more expensive than lost elections. Isn’t the policy of neutrality for UML the same this time?