The “normalization” process embodied in the CHP's Özgür Özel era has initiated long-awaited steps of political courtesy in Turkish politics. Meeting Erdoğan or standing up in the Parliament is presented as an attempt to “prove one's statesmanship”, as expected from a party claiming to be in power. However, the dark side of this picture is dominated by a strict disciplinary language that considers greeting one's own party members and defending different views as “grounds for expulsion”. The real test for the CHP is that it has withheld this strategic courtesy it displays to outsiders from its own “father's house”.
Contradicting the March 31 Spirit
The March 31 local elections were won with an understanding that embraced all segments of society, did not exclude different voices and put the will of the people at the center. Today, the “pluralist spirit” that brought this success is being replaced by a management approach that suppresses criticism within the party with a “disciplinary stick”. It is not only a contradiction, but also a step back from the spirit of March 31st, that a party that can get votes from all walks of life in municipalities cannot tolerate critical voices within its own ranks.
Two Faces of Normalization: Courtesy or Repression?
The current situation embodies a paradox that is difficult to explain. On the one hand, there is “political courtesy” and dialogue against the government, while on the other hand, the “law of comradeship” against one's own comrades has been suspended. Unfortunately, the tolerance shown at the tables set with the opponent cannot find a place at the negotiation tables set in front of the internal opposition. As long as the compromise achieved through handshakes at the top does not meet the expectation of “democratic primaries” at the bottom, normalization only carries the risk of one party becoming like the other.
The Paradox of Timing and Discourse: National Honor and Miscalculation
In his first days in office, Özgür Özel had drawn the CHP's new line as “Turkey's party abroad, main opposition at home”. However, his outbursts on the crisis in Venezuela in January 2026 were in stark contrast to this discourse. The language based on the photograph of Maduro in handcuffs, shared in rally squares and on social media, was far from the expected ’normalization“ courtesy.
The statements against the President, such as “you are afraid of Trump” and “you are licking your spit”, were seen by large segments of the society as impolite to say the least and a stylistic error that touched national honor. For an administration that silences its own party members with a disciplinary stick, these “uncalculated” foreign policy outbursts, which hurt both the public and the diplomatic weight, prove that the strategy has turned into a major miscalculation rather than a success.
Participatory Management, Not Discipline
In the CHP's more than 100-year history, disciplinary committees have never been the way to silence the opposition. History has shown that expelling the opposition from the party does not end dissent, it only weakens the sense of belonging. If the CHP wants real normalization, it must take the following concrete steps:
Merit and Pre-selection: Instead of “central polling” in candidate selection, primary elections reflecting the will of all members should be an unshakable article of the statute. A politician who draws power from the grassroots, not the leader, is the guarantee of true normalization.
Common Mind Tables: Through “Common Mind Tables” where different political schools are represented, criticism should be transformed into projects that enrich the party, not disciplinary offenses. Instead of the disciplinary stick, democratic negotiation channels should be used.
Diversity in the Shadow Cabinet: Decision-making processes should not be managed by a narrow cadre, but by a broad intellectual mechanism that includes dissident experts from within the party.
Conclusion A Historic Threshold
Özgür Özel took that seat as the candidate of the internal party opposition and the demand for “change”. Today, change cannot mean establishing a disciplinary language that shakes hands with opponents while “demonizing” fellow travelers. The real test for the CHP is its ability to transform the strategic courtesy it displays to outsiders into a culture of governance at home.
Because the following reality must be faced: For a leadership that fails to secure member law through a democratic primary election and fails to achieve a sincere intra-party embrace, neither its external “normalization” steps will be credible with the grassroots nor its march to power will translate into social confidence. Those who cannot make peace with their own opponents at home will only remain as a sign of inconsistency with their harsh polemics over national honor abroad.
It should not be forgotten that history will record not only those who shake hands with their rivals, but also those leaders who embrace the differences in their own homes and initiate social peace from within. The real issue for the CHP is not to throw someone out of the party, but to reach the maturity to understand why they are leaving.