In the more than a century-long history of the CHP, internal opposition is not a “malfunction” but a founding reflex. From Atatürk to İnönü, from Ecevit to Baykal and Kılıçdaroğlu, no general chairman has ever achieved lasting success by turning the party into a monolithic barracks. This is because the CHP is a school that exists not by suppressing differences but by discussing them, that sees differences of opinion not as a weakness but as a democratic “muscle”. Opposition is part of the natural functioning of the party; differences of opinion are not ignored, on the contrary, they keep the structure alive.
But today the picture is different. Every resignation, every break and every crack is reduced to a single figure. Instead of the current administration taking responsibility, certain media circles turn it into a perception operation through the “former chairman”. This approach deepens the divide in the public mind and confines the political debate to an accusatory framework.
Transfer of Responsibility: Another Signatory, Another Accused
Today, every crack in the party is detached from its structural causes and labeled as “the fault of the past”. However, in a rational analysis, the picture is clear:
The Authorization is from Today, the Invoice is from Yesterday: All of the mayors and councillors who have left the party today were put on the lists by the current administration and nominated with this will.
Authority-Responsibility Contradiction: While it was the current administration that signed the nomination process and said “we will walk the road”, it is a political illusion to blame the previous period when the same people leave. Saying “I put the seal on it, but the previous period is responsible for it” is an evasion of political responsibility.
Outgoing-Incoming MP Contradiction
The real paradox in the party hides in the double standard between “arrivals” and “departures”:
1. The Silent Ones: While right-wing or alliance-based deputies selected from CHP lists are seamlessly integrated into the party, no one discusses their origins or their relationship with the past. The incoming “silent” ones are considered acceptable.
2. Questioning Leavers: But when it comes to a departing MP, the issue is detached from the reasons and confined to a single question: “Whose man was he?”
3. Politics of Position: Those who come but remain silent are labeled as “valuable”, those who come but question are labeled as “problematic” and those who leave are labeled as “remnants of yesterday's era”. This approach transforms the CHP from a “party of principles” into a “party of positions” where personal loyalties compete.
“Shadow Government” Constructed by the Media”
Some of the media close to the party use the “labeling weapon” instead of creating a platform for free debate. Explaining every mistake by taking refuge in the shadow of the past serves as an armor to shield the current administration from structural scrutiny. This language, which labels instead of protecting those who question, polarizes public perception instead of enlightening it.
Conclusion: No Victorious Commander in the Middle of the Race
The real way out for the CHP is not to personalize every crisis and blame it on the past, but to operate mechanisms of institutional responsibility and transparent merit. It should not be a matter of taking refuge in a first place finish in the middle of a marathon, and then acting like a “victorious commander”. If the real goal is to be on the first place podium at the end of the marathon, the path to follow should not be “transfer of responsibility” but success sharing and collective wisdom.
The way to prevent ruptures from the party is not to stigmatize names; it is to take the processes of nominating candidates out of the initiative of individuals and make them open to the control of the organization. Because what makes a party grow is not to defend the present with the mistakes of the past, but to take responsibility for the present and establish the democratic standards of the future from within. No matter how much the shadows are enlarged, the light will eventually find its own way. The people see with their own wisdom who put these names there and with what criteria. The future of the CHP can only be shaped under a light that is openly discussed, not by implied shadows.