Politics in Turkey has recently been shaped not only by ideological debates, but also by allegations and political debates that have been the subject of judicial processes. The Republican People's Party (CHP) has also been at the center of these debates, and various allegations against the party have been widely discussed in public.
However, what needs to be done at this point is to evaluate a political party based on the historical line and institutional identity it represents, beyond current debates. This is because political parties gain meaning not only through the debates that emerge in certain periods, but also through their political practices and governance approaches that span many years.
In this context, the fundamental question to be asked is this: How can the CHP govern Turkey in line with its founding principles and historical background?
This article goes beyond current debates and seeks to answer this question from a historical perspective through the CHP's government programs, parliamentary minutes and political positions in times of crisis.
Founding Reason: State Continuity and the Politics of Balance
Since the early years of the Republic, the CHP's political approach has been very clear:
- Protecting the existence and independence of the state
- Establishing balanced relations with the international system
- Pursuing a peaceful and predictable foreign policy
The essence of this approach is clear:
State governance is not based on ideological drifts, rational balance and institutional continuity.
This is why the CHP tradition does not produce sudden changes in foreign policy direction;
based on the long-term interests of the state.
Understanding Democracy: Sharing Power Politics
One of the most important elements determining the political character of the CHP is its understanding of power. The approach put forward during the transition to multi-party life is clear and unambiguous:
“Political competition does not weaken state governance; it strengthens it.”
The contemporary equivalent of this understanding is this:
The CHP is not the one that concentrates power in one hand; offers a governance model that institutionalizes and balances.
This is why the CHP's governance approach is based on institutional mechanisms based on.
CHP in Times of Crisis: Protecting the Regime and Sustaining the System
The true character of a political tradition is revealed in moments of crisis.
After the May 27, 1960 Intervention: Reconstruction of Civil Politics
May 27, 1960 The picture that emerged after the intervention is a serious regime crisis for Turkey. İsmet İnönü's approach in this process is remarkable.
Inönü's line:
- Re-establishment of civilian politics
- Operationalization of the parliamentary system
- Maintaining democratic order
has been.
This approach is not to make the intervention permanent; to make the political system work again is based on.
After the March 12, 1971 Intervention: State Authority and Civil Politics
After the March 12, 1971 intervention, Turkey not only experienced a change of government but also entered a period in which state authority was redefined. İsmet İnönü's approach in this process is extremely important in terms of revealing the CHP's understanding of crisis management.
The political line adopted by İnönü:
- Restoration of state authority
- However, this process must be conducted entirely within civil politics.
- Protection and functioning of the parliamentary system
in the form of a new form.
This is not a policy that ignores the conditions of intervention;
but it is also opposed to turning intervention into a permanent model of governance.
Hence the CHP's position in this period:
It is a line that neither flies out of the system in the face of the intervention, nor perpetuates the intervention. On the contrary, this line; It represents a political mind that seeks to strike a balance between state authority and democratic order under conditions of crisis.
This clearly reveals the basic orientation of the CHP even in times of crisis:
The aim is not to abolish the system, but to make it work again.
Ecevit Era: Social State and Democratic Deepening
With Bülent Ecevit, the CHP's understanding of governance gained a stronger social dimension.
Coalition protocols:
- Rule of law
- Democratic rights and freedoms
- Social justice
- Secular social state of law
takes place in a clear way
The implication of this approach is this:
The CHP leadership is not only the one that governs the state; It produces a political model that establishes social balance.
After September 12, 1980: Political Continuity and SHP
After the September 12, 1980 intervention, all political parties, including the CHP, were closed down. However, this did not mean that the political line represented by the CHP disappeared.
In this period, the Social Democratic Populist Party (SHP) emerged largely as a continuation of the CHP tradition in terms of its cadres, political approach and programmatic preferences.
Therefore, when evaluating the post-1980 period, we should not only focus on the parties that were closed down; We need to look at political continuity and the continuity of the line represented.
This continuity shows that the CHP tradition has not been interrupted; on the contrary, it continues to exist within the political system through different institutional structures.
This situation also reveals that the CHP tradition has a reflex that preserves its political existence even in times of crisis, does not drift out of the system and reorganizes within the democratic ground.
Coalition Experience: A Culture of Compromise
The political texts of the CHP in the 1990s offer the most mature examples of its governance approach.
In these texts:
- Pluralist democracy
- Human rights
- Expanding freedoms
- Social reconciliation
have been identified as the main objectives
This approach makes a critical difference today:
The CHP is not a source of political tension; represents a political culture that governs by consensus.
Foreign Policy Institutionalization and Predictability
One of the most important continuities in the government programs and parliamentary debates of the Republican era is the foreign policy approach.
This understanding is based on three basic principles:
- International legitimacy
- Balanced diplomacy
- Avoiding sudden breaks
For this reason, the CHP tradition is based on the long-term interests of the state, not on sudden changes of direction in foreign policy.”
What Does CHP Power Mean Today?
When this historical background is adapted to the present, a clear model of governance emerges:
State Governance
- Strengthening institutionalization
- Merit-based structure
- Reducing arbitrariness
Democracy
- Separation of powers
- Strong Parliament
- Independent judiciary
Society
- Social state
- Income balance
- Rights and freedoms
Foreign Policy
- Predictability
- Diplomatic balance
- International credibility
Conclusion: A Tradition of Governance, Not a Party
It is incomplete to evaluate the Republican People's Party only as a political party.
CHP:
- It is a founding mind
- A state experience
- It is a tradition of governance
Therefore, the answer to the question “How can the CHP govern Turkey?” is clear:
With the continuity of the mind that founded the state, with the reflex that protects democracy,
and governs with policies that balance society.
What Turkey needs is not only a political change.
- Restoring institutional wisdom
- Establishing democratic balance
- Rational state management
All of these elements are already present in the CHP's historical practice.
This is why the debate on CHP rule is not a party debate; It is a fundamental debate on whether state reason can be restored in Turkey.
The state mind is not interrupted; only the political will that carries it changes.