If Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's law is entrusted to Özgür Özel, what a pity!
Özgür Özel's following remarks are noteworthy:
“The law of our former General President is entrusted to me first and foremost. I condemn it in one word.”
This was the most prominent sentence of yesterday.
So you have to ask:
If there was such a sensitivity, why wasn't Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's law protected at the 38th Congress?
Obeying the law is of course essential. However, the issue is not only to emphasize “law”, but to be able to defend that law in all circumstances and in a consistent manner.
At this point, some questions come to mind.
Is there an attempt to create a ground for détente with the rhetoric carried out through Cumhuriyet columnist Mine Kırıkkanat by making it appear as if Özgür Özel is supporting Kılıçdaroğlu?
Or are these really independent developments?
The answers to these questions may be hidden behind the scenes of politics. But the public image suggests that this is no simple coincidence.
Özgür Özel's facial expression when he met Kılıçdaroğlu at the funeral of the late Hüsamettin Cindoruk is also remembered. That moment was quite remarkable in terms of the emotions reflected between the lines of politics.
More importantly, there has been neither a strong reaction from the party's corporate identity against the systematic insult and smear campaigns against Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, nor an inclusive and unifying stance in Özgür Özel's statements.
Today, a different language is used.
This change inevitably raises the question:
Is the possibility of “absolute nullity” the main reason behind this change of discourse?
If not, the following questions need to be answered clearly:
- Was the CHP's 38th congress really free of controversy and shame?
- Or does today's détente show that the question marks from that period are still alive?
- Did the ordinary and extraordinary congress processes attempt to legitimize a controversial ground?
- Weren't those who thought differently within the party, especially those who stood close to Kılıçdaroğlu, purged through disciplinary processes?
- Were there no lobbying activities to prevent Kılıçdaroğlu from becoming influential again?
- Were the contacts with Bülent Arınç in this context not publicized?
On the other hand, with campaigns targeting Kılıçdaroğlu's reputation on Halk TV and some other media outlets, how credible is it to say that Kılıçdaroğlu was really unaware of this process?
When all these developments are evaluated together, the picture is clear:
Today's discourse on “law” contradicts the silence of the past.
The most tangible result of these contradictions is that the CHP has been dragged into an image characterized by controversy and suspicion.
And finally...
The comments under Özgür Özel's post about Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu on the social media platform X are another indicator.
Those comments, which in the past turned into an archive full of insults and profanity, make one question how much the claim of “ownership of the law” that is being voiced today resonates.
Conclusion:
In politics, consistency is as important as rhetoric.
If a defense of “law” is to be made, it should have been made with the same determination not only today but also yesterday.
Otherwise, only one sentence comes to mind:
Absolute nullity... What are you capable of!