The whole point of a party is that it's a set of people who have already set aside most of their differences in pursuit of a common set of goals. You resolve general issues among yourselves, then present a more-or-less unified front in public. If you can't do that, you can't do any of the genuinely hard negotiations to achieve your own priorities.

If the majority of the party is willing to tolerate this guy, then anybody going against him breaks the party trust that they need to get anything done. It bodes badly for the rest of the session.

For a lot of the dissenters, that's OK. This has long been the anti-government party, and it's not surprising that a fraction of it are happy to have no sitting legislature at all. It's actually a bit surprising this hasn't happened before.

So this isn't really about "fast convergence". This is about not even getting to the "convergence" step. (Oh, and you'd be surprised at how much complexity and delay there is in the Chinese Communist Party. It does have an absolute leader at the top, but unlike North Korea, it is a functioning government with a lot of internal competition at all of the lower levels.)