Politics in Turkey no longer produces ideas; it produces reflexes. There is no debate, there are sides. There is no reasoning, there is belonging. There is no talk about whether a policy is right or not; the talk is about who said it. This is not a political preference, but a mental regression.
“Politics” in our country is stuck between two extremes: allegiance and betrayal. There is no in between. Those who criticize are either “betrayed” or “the timing is wrong”. This political culture rewards loyalty, not reason. Yet democracy is a regime of control, not loyalty.
A person who defends every wrongdoing of a party cannot be called a “man of the cause”. This sentence is not a rhetoric to be taken lightly, but a litmus test of political morality. Because a cause is loyalty to a principle, not a person. When the principle and the leader change places, politics begins to unravel. When the principle retreats, the party becomes sacrosanct. And when the party is sanctified, criticism becomes a sin.
Today in Turkey, the concept of “cause” has been distorted. The cause has been transformed from a moral responsibility into an oath of organizational loyalty. Loyalty to the center has replaced loyalty to the principle. Thus, politics has ceased to be intellectual and turned into a hierarchical discipline.
A true man of the cause is one who can defend the truth even against his own neighborhood. Because his commitment is not to comfortable spaces, but to difficult questions. The principle is constant. The leader changes. The party changes. The conditions change. But the principle does not change.
A partisan changes position with the leader. What he called “lawlessness” yesterday, he calls “necessity” today. What he called “authoritarianism” yesterday he calls “determination” today. Because his measure is not value but the center.
This is the essence of the political crisis in Turkey: Loyalty to principle has been withdrawn and loyalty to identity has been glorified.
And loyalty to identity silences the mind.
Having to defend the wrong is a natural consequence of identity politics. Because admitting that what is wrong is wrong is perceived as scoring points for the other side. This is the collapse of moral judgment.
The real issue today is this:
Is the cause being protected or the party?
Political morality cannot be built without answering this question.
Partisanship The Political Mask of Modern Tribalism
The evisceration of the concept of the cause was a beginning. The real destruction began with its institutionalization. Because when the mentality breaks down, so do the institutions. When principle retreats, discipline takes its place. When discipline is withdrawn, fear takes its place.
Partisanship is a natural element of democracy. This is true. But when partisanship turns from the defense of ideas to the defense of identity, politics ceases to be democratic competition; it evolves into modern tribalism.
In the tribal mentality there is no truth, there is loyalty.
There is no judgment, there is reflex.
There is no criticism, there is purification.
Parties in Turkey have long been transformed into leader-centered loyalty networks rather than idea-generating organisms. As intra-party debate weakens, the center strengthens. As the center gets stronger, different voices are coded as “risks”. And every voice coded as a risk becomes a subject of discipline after a while.
When loyalty overrides merit, the institution collapses. Because loyalty does not question. Merit requires questioning. As obedience rises, thought declines. This is why leader-centered politics looks orderly in the short term but becomes barren in the long term.
This is the reason for the superficialization of political debates in Turkey today. People do not talk politics; they talk sides. An issue is not evaluated; it is defended or rejected with a camp reflex.
The most dangerous thing is this: admitting that something is wrong is perceived as weakness. Because admitting it is seen as giving moral superiority to the other side. This mentality paralyzes moral judgment.
However, democracy is strengthened not by applause, but by control.
If there is no control from the inside, promises from the outside are not credible.
The most insidious aspect of modern tribalism is this: People no longer feel obliged to think, but to defend. When the defensive reflex becomes permanent, politics ceases to be an intellectual activity; it becomes a psychological defense mechanism.
When the difference between party unity and univocity disappears, institutional decay sets in. Unity looks strong in the short term. But unity is an echo chamber that magnifies the mistake. If there is no objection from within, the mistake is not corrected; it solidifies.
This is precisely where Turkey's political culture sounds the alarm. Silence is demanded in the name of unity. Criticism is suppressed in the name of discipline. This situation is not unique to one party; it has become a general characteristic of the political sphere.
And it must be said clearly:
The structure that fears criticism also fears the truth.
When this fear becomes entrenched, politics ceases to be a struggle for principle; it becomes a struggle for position.
Expulsions in CHP: Test of Principle or Power Reflex?
Theory is comfortable. Concrete example is uncomfortable. So let's get straight to the point.
Today's debates center around the expulsion processes within the Republican People's Party. Some defend this as “a requirement of organizational discipline”. Others see it as a “purge of ideas”. The real question is deeper:
Is it really discipline that is being criticized, or is it the comfort of power?
Every party has a disciplinary mechanism. Expulsion is part of it. The problem is not the existence of the expulsion decision; it is the mentality with which it is operated. If criticism within the party turns directly into a disciplinary file, it means that the principle and the party have switched places.
CHP is not an ordinary party. It is a party that identifies itself with the founding values of the republic. This claim is heavy. This claim raises the bar of democratic sensitivity. Because the claim of democracy is first tested internally.
It is precisely here that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's approach should be remembered:
“Criticize when you see mistakes in the party.”
This sentence is not a blessing, it is a manifesto of mentality. The party is not the goal; it is the means. The principle is the goal. If the principle suffers, the party must be criticized. A party that cannot be criticized ceases to be a tool; it becomes sacred.
And the sanctified structure cannot be inspected.
This is where the real danger starts today. If criticism is labeled as harming the integrity of the party, it means that the party and the cause are identified. This identification produces intellectual freezing in the long run.
The expulsion mechanism exists for organizational sabotage, not for difference of opinion. If expression of opinion is equated with sabotage, that party will liquidate the intellectual energy within itself.
The size of a party is not measured by how many people it silences, but by how many different voices it can keep under the same roof.
For the CHP, the issue is not a few names; it is a matter of institutional reflex. The reaction to criticism determines the future of the party. If the reflex is “liquidation”, the party starts to resemble the political culture it criticizes. This resemblance does not happen overnight. It happens with small decisions, small silences.
The most dangerous thing is this:
“Now is not the time”.
Untimely criticism disappears after a while. And with the disappearance of criticism, the internal party accounting also disappears.
If democracy is reduced to election day, then internal party democracy is seen as unnecessary. But democracy starts before the ballot box. It starts with debate. It starts with objections.
If the CHP cannot create space for criticism within itself, the freedom discourse it promises for the country will weaken. Because political credibility is built from within.
And we must be clear about this:
Fearing criticism, the structure has put power before principle.
This is a mindset shift.
Political Subject or Supporter? Democracy Doesn't Start If It Doesn't Start From Within
Now to a more disturbing question:
Are we political subjects or supporters?
Fans don't think, they defend.
The subject weighs before defending.
For a supporter, party is identity. When identity is threatened, the reflex kicks in. Criticism is considered as giving material to the enemy. Wrong is not accepted; it is justified. Because if identity is broken, belonging is shaken.
For the political subject, the party is the means. The principle is superior. If the means harms the principle, the means is criticized. This is not betrayal but responsibility.
For a long time now, Turkey has been producing political supporters rather than political subjects. The reason for this is not only the parties but the political culture itself. The leader-centered structure personalizes criticism. When the party is criticized, the leader is considered criticized. When the leader is criticized, the label “traitor” is ready.
In this climate, politics ceases to be an intellectual activity; it turns into a field of psychological defense.
The most dangerous threshold is this:
People now feel obliged to defend the wrong.
This necessity is the most advanced stage of political decay. Because at that point, loyalty, not truth, becomes decisive. As loyalty increases, judgment decreases.
Democracy is not limited to the ballot box. Democracy is a culture. The first test of this culture is within the party. If there is no pluralism within the party, the promise of pluralism for the country is rhetorical.
If the leader cannot be criticized within the party, the defense of freedom of expression for the country is incomplete.
If the disciplinary mechanism within the party turns into a means of suppressing ideas, that party cannot establish the moral high ground in the fight against authoritarianism.
Democracy starts inside first. If it doesn't start inside, it doesn't start anywhere.
This is the summary of Turkey's political crisis:
Taking sides is confused with being right.
But vindication is possible through fidelity to principle. And loyalty to principle is tested in difficult times. It is easy to stand by power. It is difficult to speak against power.
Today the main issue is not internal party discipline; it is political character.
Political character is the courage to criticize power.
If this courage is absent, the rhetoric of the cause is just rhetoric.
If the Principle Collapses, the Party Remains, but the Cause Dies
We have been circling around the same question since the beginning of this article:
Cause or party? Principle or loyalty?
It is time to say it more clearly.
If a political structure sees criticism as a threat, it means that it has failed to distance itself from power. And those who cannot distance themselves from power cannot be loyal to principle. Because power always produces comfort, while principle often requires a price.
For a long time now, politics in Turkey has turned into a struggle to defend positions rather than a struggle for principles. Everyone is defending their own space. Everyone is fortifying their own camp. The price of this fortification is intellectual impoverishment.
The CHP example is a critical threshold in this respect. Because it is not a luxury for a party that positions itself as the bearer of a historical claim to show an ordinary reflex to criticism within the party. If the first reaction to criticism is defense and liquidation, it means that the principle has been withdrawn.
When the principle retreats, the party remains.
When the party stays, the structure appears to stand.
But the case dies a slow death.
This death doesn't happen all at once. It happens in small silences. It happens with small reasons. It happens with the phrase “now is not the time”. It happens with the sensitivity of “the Union must not be damaged”. And then one day one looks back and realizes that it is no longer principles that are being defended, but only positions.
Democracy is not imported from outside. Democracy is produced inside. It is produced within the party. It is produced through a culture of criticism. If pluralism within the party is weak, the claim of pluralism for the country remains rhetorical.
The main issue in Turkey today is not winning elections; it is rebuilding political morality. Because when political morality collapses, the problem persists no matter which party wins.
Taking sides is easy. Staying true to principle is difficult.
Loyalty is comfortable. Principle is risky.
And the real cause cannot be defended without risk.
Now let's go back to the initial question:
Are we protecting a party or a value?
If the value is not protected, there is no case.
There are only sides.
And taking sides does not mean being right.
NECESSARY STEPS FOR A SOLUTION
1. Create a binding “supremacy of principle” clause on party programs; everyone, including the leader, should be subject to this text.
2. Criticism within the party should be explicitly excluded from the scope of discipline; expression of opinion should not be grounds for dismissal.
3. Disciplinary boards should be made independent and decisions should be transparently made public.
4. Intra-party pluralism should be protected as a constitutional norm; structural guarantees should be put in place for the representation of different views.
5. Leadership powers should be limited in duration and scope.
6. Mandatory political ethics and constitutional loyalty training for party members.
7. Establish referendum mechanisms for major disciplinary decisions that allow members to participate.
8. An internal party ombudsman system should be established; members should be able to apply directly.
9. The performance of intra-party democracy should be made public in an annual report.
10. Open forums and discussion mechanisms that encourage a culture of criticism should be regularized.