Taking the possibility of an election in Hungary and writing a story about the end of the government in Turkey... This is not politics; it is a clear mental escape. Let's say it even harsher: This is an intellectually disguised way of covering up its own incompetence.
Today, a certain section of the opposition in Turkey is trying to translate politics instead of producing it. The equation based on Viktor Orbán is as shallow as this: “If Orban goes, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan goes too.”
This is not an analysis. This is marketing wishful thinking as theory.
Because politics is not based on the results in other countries. Each country has its own reality, its own electorate, its own balance of power. Drawing a similarity between Hungary and Turkey and inferring a commonality of destiny is just superficial reasoning.
But it's not about accuracy anyway - it's about relief.
Such comparisons hide the opposition's biggest problem:
The fact that you can't win on your own.
Because a politics that puts its hope in someone else's loss actually admits this:
“We can't solve this in our own power.”
That's why you always look outside. Because it takes courage to look inside.
Look inside and you will see the following:
There is no clear program.
There is no coherent squad.
There is no reassuring management perspective.
But despite this, the narrative of “the government is leaving” is being built with great confidence.
Based on what?
Just in case in Budapest.
At this point a harsh reality must be faced:
The weakening of a government does not mean that the opposition is getting stronger.
This is one of the most primitive fallacies of politics. Thinking that the opponent's loss is their gain. However, this is not how electoral math works. Voters don't just vote for “he should go”; they want to be convinced of “who will replace him”.
And this is where the opposition collapses.
Because the structure that can talk for hours when asked “why they are bad” becomes silent when asked “why we are good”.
That is why the narratives built on Hungary are not political analysis; they are psychological support mechanisms.
A self-confident politics does not need external references.
A movement that is sure of its own strength does not cling to other countries' elections.
But here we have the opposite:
Emptiness inside, hope outside.
And this is not a sustainable politics.
Let's be even more specific:
An opposition waiting for someone else to lose,
has already lost its will to win.
So this is not about Hungary.
This is not about Orban.
The question is why the opposition in Turkey still cannot be a real alternative.
And every external reference to avoid this question,
does not solve the problem - it only postpones it.
Showcase Politics: Looking Like an Alternative is Not Being an Alternative
In the first part, we established the truth: pinning your hopes on someone else's loss is not a sign of politics, but of incapacity. Now to the more disturbing part.
The biggest illusion of the opposition in Turkey is this:
Pretending to be an alternative is being an alternative.
Today's politics is based more on image than substance. Harsh statements, high-toned speeches, sentences that garner applause on social media... It's all there. But when it comes to the point of “tomorrow you will govern the country”, there is a serious gap.
Because there is a showcase and no backbone.
A significant part of the opposition, particularly the Republican People's Party, has gradually reduced politics to a communication activity. There is an expectation that if they say the right sentence, make the right exit, make the right comparison, the power will automatically change hands.
However, politics is not about visibility; it is about capacity.
To run a country:
It is not about tweeting, it is about taking decisions.
It is about solving crises, not making slogans.
It is not about having an agenda, it is about setting a direction.
And there is a very clear break here.
A significant part of the opposition today, They are used to criticizing the government, not being in power. This has become a reflex. Let's say it even harsher: It is a comfort zone.
Because criticizing does not involve risk.
But it involves managing.
When you criticize, you don't pay a price.
But when you govern, every decision has consequences.
This is why a political language that constantly produces criticism but no solutions emerges. And over time, this language enters a self-repetitive cycle:
Same anger
Same sentences
Same expectations
But the results do not change.
Because the method is wrong from the beginning.
The comments on Hungary are an extension of this showcase politics. Because such comparisons are the easiest way to talk without presenting a real program. Producing content is difficult; making analogies is easy.
But voters see this difference.
Voters are now asking:
“Okay, you criticize the current government. But what are you going to do?”
The answers to this question are either vague, fragmented or contradictory.
Economy? Generic statements.
Law Abstract promises.
Management model? Uncertain.
This picture does not generate confidence.
And politics cannot be won without trust.
For a structure that has been losing elections against Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for years to still expect results with the same method is no longer a strategic mistake; it is a persistent blindness.
Let's be more precise:
To keep losing and doing the same thing is not persistence in politics, it is stubborn failure.
What does it mean to be an alternative?
It means being clear.
It means taking risks.
It means taking responsibility.
But what is being done today is this:
Expect support without clarity.
Wanting power without paying the price.
Expect results without change.
This is not possible.
Let us ask again those who are trying to build morale by looking at Hungary:
If you are really a strong alternative, why are you always looking outside?
If you are in a position to win the election, why are you still talking in parables?
The answer is simple:
Because what is lacking inside is tried to be covered up with stories from the outside.
But this is not politics - it is an illusion.
And illusions do not win elections.
Conclusion:
Playing politics over Hungary,
It is not being able to do politics in Turkey.
Because real politics is not about what happens in other countries,
is measured by what you do here.
How to Win? Process, Will and the Habit of Losing in Turkey
Now we have come to the most critical point, because this is where the real distortion is taking place:
The example of Hungary is talked about, but not how it was won, only “the possibility of losing”.
However, politics is not understood by the result, but by the process.
For years the opposition in Hungary lost to Viktor Orbán. It was disorganized, fragmented, consuming each other. Just like in Turkey today.
But at some point they faced this reality:
Being right separately means losing together.
And from that point on they did the difficult thing.
They have narrowed their ideological comfort zone.
They stopped competing with each other.
They have turned to the idea of a joint candidate.
They tried to save voters from uncertainty.
So they did this:
They replaced ego with strategy.
This is not an easy thing. Because politics is not only about the opponent, but also about internal power struggles. But the Hungarian opposition succeeded, at least for a while:
Not to put internal strife ahead of losing the election.
More importantly, they didn't just merge-they tried to be convincing.
They offered concrete promises in the economy.
They described their management approach.
They gave the voters the answer to the question “what will happen when we come?”.
So they didn't just say “Orbán must go”.
“They said, ”When we come, this will happen.".
That's the difference.
Now let's look at Turkey.
What is the Republican People's Party and the opposition in general doing?
The fragmentation continues.
The internal debates do not end.
The leadership problem is chronic.
The programs are not clear.
And the most critical issue:
The insistence on being right instead of the will to win.
A significant part of the opposition in Turkey is still under this misconception:
“We are right, so we must win.”
No, no, no.
The voter is not the most accurate;
chooses the most reassuring one.
This is bitter but true.
It has now become a preference for a structure that has been losing against Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for years to still engage in politics with the same reflexes. And this preference shows the following:
Losing has become a habit.
Let's say it even harder:
Some of the opposition in Turkey today,
is not ready to make the necessary sacrifices to win.
It is not ready for power sharing.
It is not ready for clarification.
He is not ready to take risks.
But despite that, he wants power.
This is an impossible expectation in politics.
If you really want to understand the Hungarian case, it is not the outcome but the transformation that you need to look at.
There the opposition (at least in certain periods) forced itself to change.
In Turkey, the opposition wants to change the outcome without changing itself.
That's the whole point.
And now the clearest sentence:
You cannot win without change.
Creating hope by looking at someone else's loss,
but to cover up his own shortcomings.
If you want to talk about Hungary:
Talk about what the opposition did right, not about Orbán's loss.
But in order to do this, we must first face the reality:
The problem is not outside.
The problem is inside.
Change of power in Turkey,
not by election results in other countries,
by the strength of the alternative established here.
And as long as that alternative is not established,
generating hope by looking at someone else's loss
is just fooling yourself.
Because politics,
not by waiting-
is gained through change.