A significant part of political discussions are based on election results, alliances, polls and internal party balances. However, modern political psychology tells us something very different: Societies often follow identities, not ideas.
Politics is therefore not only a matter of economics, law or public administration. It is also a process of managing human psychology, sense of belonging and collective identities.
It is possible to see the same reality when we look at the political debates in Turkey today. Many developments within the Republican People's Party (CHP), from the government-opposition relations to the absolute nullity ruled by the 36th Civil Chamber of Ankara BAM on May 21, 2026 and the debate on the chairman, should be read not only in their legal or political dimensions, but also in their psychological dimensions.
Why is Identity Politics so Powerful?
The psychoanalyst Erik Erikson and the political psychology researchers who followed him have shown that people do not live with only individual identities.
People at the same time;
-
religion,
-
ethnicity,
-
national,
-
cultural,
-
ideological
they carry identities.
These affiliations may be invisible in normal times. However, in times of crisis, they can suddenly take center stage in politics.
This is precisely what Vamık Volkan defines as “large group identity”. Under normal circumstances, people do not wake up in the morning feeling “I am a Turk”, “I am a CHP member”, “I am a conservative” or “I am a social democrat”.
But in times of social crisis, identities become visible.
When society feels threatened, people start behaving not as individuals but as members of the group to which they belong.
This is where the real influence of political leaders comes into play.
What Do Leaders Do?
Politicians often appear to be making policy. However, a significant number of successful leaders actually manage emotions.
A leader;
-
can magnify fear,
-
can reduce fear,
-
can increase hope,
-
can organize anger,
-
can reinforce a sense of victimization,
-
can build a shared story of the future.
It is therefore not only what leaders say that political scientists study.
What matters is what emotion what they say stirs in society.
From Atatürk to Mandela: Leaders Constructing Identity
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk did not only establish a new state after the War of Independence.
At the same time, he tried to build a new national identity out of a disintegrated imperial society.
Nelson Mandela similarly tried to forge a common South African identity rather than directing the anger of the black majority against the white minority.
The main characteristic of such leaders is that they try to unite society around a common goal.
A significant part of the debates in the CHP has actually turned into a discussion of legitimacy and belonging. While one side seeks to preserve the party's historical memory and institutional continuity, the other side believes that it represents the will for change and new political energy. For this reason, congresses, court decisions or general presidential debates are not only organizational issues. They are also a reflection of the party base's different answers to the questions “What is CHP?” and “What kind of a party should CHP be?”.
Therefore, the debate in the CHP is not only between individuals, but also a psychological search for direction on the future of the party's identity.
Trump and Erdoğan: The Power of the Politics of Belonging
Donald Trump's rise cannot be explained by economic reasons alone.
Trump told millions of Americans that they are “forgotten people”.
He established a strong psychological bond with the electorate that supported him.
Similarly, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan cannot be considered merely as a party leader.
Its nearly quarter-century-long political influence can be attributed to its ability to meet the historical belonging, perceptions of victimization and search for representation of certain social segments.
Therefore, support for or reaction against Erdoğan often goes beyond classical political preferences.
For supporters, an identity of belonging is formed, while for opponents, a similar counter-identity is formed.
The Controversy in CHP: Just a Leadership Struggle?
From a political psychology perspective, there are significant differences between the leadership styles represented by Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and Özgür Özel.
Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's leadership is more oriented towards reducing social polarization, establishing dialogue between different segments of society and easing political tensions. His “halalization” discourse was one of the most prominent examples of this. In this respect, Kılıçdaroğlu presented a leadership model that aims to heal social wounds and build trust between different identities.
The leadership style represented by Özgür Özel is more mobile, more visible and more mobilizing. Rallies, squares, mass participation and high political energy are the key elements of this approach. This model aims to strengthen the sense of common struggle among voters and increase political participation.
Therefore, the debate within the CHP should not only be seen as a competition between two leaders. In fact, two different psychological needs are confronting each other. On the one hand, there is the search for trust, consensus and institutional stability; on the other, there is the expectation of change, struggle and political mobilization.
Why Do Masses Rally Around Leaders?
As Gustave Le Bon pointed out more than a century ago, the masses are often driven not by rational calculations but by emotional processes.
In times of crisis, people turn to powerful symbols rather than complex explanations.
Flags,
slogans,
heroes,
stories of victimization,
common enemies,
common hopes
These are the basic ingredients of political movements.
This is why elections often take place not between economic programs but between competing narratives.
Conclusion Politics is a Struggle for Identity
Many political developments in Turkey and around the world cannot be explained solely by law, economics or electoral mathematics.
People often act not out of self-interest but for the identities to which they feel they belong.
This is where leaders come in.
Some manage the fears of society.
Some of them their hopes.
Some of them are angry.
Others dream of a shared future.
Therefore, when evaluating a leader, it is not enough to look only at how many elections he or she has won.
The question is this:
What has it strengthened in the psychology of society?
Because history shows that it can be politicians who govern states.
But it is leaders who can change the way people answer the question “who are we?” that transform societies. Because politics often begins not at the ballot box, but in the minds and hearts of people. Leaders may win or lose elections. But they leave their mark on history to the extent that they can change how a society defines itself.