Politics does not operate solely through platforms, charters, and legal rules. Societies and political movements are also driven by emotions, identities, a sense of belonging, and collective psychology. Sometimes, the apparent subject of debates within a political party may be a convention, an election, or leadership; however, the underlying mechanisms at work are quite different. The debate shifts away from being purely legal and takes on a psychological and identity-based character.
Recent developments within the Republican People’s Party (CHP) can also be analyzed within this framework. In particular, when examining the discourse surrounding the party congress debates, the decision of absolute nullity, internal objections, and the leadership struggle, it becomes evident that more than a classic internal organizational disagreement is taking place. The debates are increasingly moving away from the ’right vs. wrong“ axis and are shifting toward identity-based divisions such as ”the loyal and the traitors,“ ”us and them,“ and ”those defending the party and its enemies.“.
To understand this transformation, one must turn to the literature on group psychology, collective identity, and leadership.
The Logic of Crowd Psychology
In his book *The Psychology of Crowds*, Gustave Le Bon argues that crowds think differently from individuals. According to him, crowds respond more to emotional appeals, symbols, and repeated slogans than to logical reasoning. The more an idea is repeated, and the more definitively and unquestionably it is presented, the more effective it becomes on the crowd.
One of the fundamental characteristics of crowd psychology is the tendency to reduce complex events to simple explanations. Uncertainty is unsettling. For this reason, crowds often tend to embrace the simple narratives presented to them rather than trying to understand complex legal or political processes.
At this point, the leader becomes a decisive figure. This is because the leader is seen not only as a political actor but also as the representative of the group’s shared sentiments.
Freud and Identification with the Leader
In his work *Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego*, Sigmund Freud makes an important observation regarding the relationship between a group and its leader: Over time, group members identify with the leader. The leader ceases to be merely the person in charge; he becomes the embodiment of the group’s ideal self.
In this situation, criticism of the leader is not perceived as ordinary political criticism. Criticism directed at the leader begins to feel like an attack on the group itself.
It is precisely at this point that critical thinking begins to wane within political movements. This is because what matters most to group members is no longer the validity of the argument, but the protection of the leader and the group.
Broad Group Identity and the “Us-Them” Division
The large-group identity approach, developed by Erik Erikson and later by Vamık Volkan, demonstrates that millions of people can unite around a shared sense of “we” even if they do not know one another. In this regard, Volkan’s books *Blind Faith* and *Killing in the Name of Identity* are must-reads for anyone interested in this topic.
Under normal circumstances, the broader group identity takes a back seat. However, when the group feels threatened, individual identities recede into the background and the broader group identity comes to the fore.
In this situation, people begin to identify themselves more as “we” rather than “I.”.
That's where the problem arises.
Because the stronger “we” become, the more clearly “they” emerge.
Even dissenting voices within a group can eventually be labeled as “the other.” Thinking differently, offering criticism, or raising legal objections may begin to be viewed as treason.
“The Mechanism of Producing ”Traitors”
Throughout history, many political movements have sought to maintain unity by creating new enemies rather than resolving their internal disputes.
This mechanism is quite simple:
First, a threat to the group is identified.
The individuals linked to this threat are then identified.
Then the complex realities surrounding these individuals are stripped away and replaced with one-dimensional labels.
In this way, the person ceases to be a human being; they become a symbol.
“Traitor.”
“Collaborative.”
“The other side’s man.”
“Troll.”
“The enemy.”
The moment these labels are used, the debate comes to an end. Because it is no longer ideas that are speaking, but identities.
Media and Perception-Building
In modern politics, propaganda is not carried out solely through state channels.
Television stations, newspapers, social media accounts, digital networks, and opinion leaders such as journalists, academics, lawyers, and politicians also become part of this process.
When a statement is repeated over and over again, people may eventually stop questioning its truth.
In political psychology, this is referred to as the “reality effect.”.
A piece of information may begin to be perceived as true not because it is true, but simply because it is constantly repeated.
For this reason, propaganda often aims to manipulate existing emotions rather than generate new information.
Anger, fear, a sense of belonging, and feelings of threat are the most effective tools for this.
The Psychological Foundations of Fascism
Fascism is not merely a form of government; it is also a specific psychological climate.
In this climate:
- The leader becomes beyond criticism.
- Opponents are demonized.
- Complex issues are attributed to a single enemy figure.
- An atmosphere of constant threat is created.
- Group identity takes precedence over individual identity.
- Loyalty becomes more valuable than honesty.
During the Mussolini and Hitler eras, these mechanisms were implemented in an extremely harsh and overt manner.
Today, however, these same processes can manifest themselves in much more subtle, sophisticated, and often democratic ways.
Therefore, the issue is not merely historical fascism.
The real issue is the psychological mechanisms that can resurface in any era.
Looking at the CHP Debates from This Perspective
It is noteworthy that, in the recent developments within the CHP, legal disputes have increasingly turned into a psychological and identity-based struggle.
In an environment where issues such as the legality of party conventions, delegate status, court rulings, or the party charter need to be discussed, the fact that the debate increasingly centers on individuals, critics are labeled, and differing views are demonized is one of the classic signs of group psychology.
The question is this:
Will a political movement view internal criticism and legal challenges as a source of democratic richness?
Or will they perceive these as an attack on their group identity and exclude them?
The answer to this question is significant not only for the CHP but also for the future of all political movements in Turkey.
Two Different Reactions Within the CHP
In this context, two distinct patterns of reaction within the CHP are particularly noteworthy. The crisis unfolding within the CHP can be interpreted not only as a leadership contest but also as a clash between two different approaches to political governance. On one side is an approach that prioritizes institutional procedures, internal party mechanisms, and legal processes; on the other is an approach that seeks to constantly mobilize the grassroots and aims to transform emotional energy into political power.
The implementation of disciplinary procedures, changes to the Parliamentary Group Management, making the Central Executive Board more effective, and the reorganization of internal party mechanisms are presented as tools of Kılıçdaroğlu’s approach. The central tenet of this approach is that the party must be managed in accordance with the law, the party charter, and institutional procedures, even in times of crisis.
Its distinctive feature is its ability to rapidly mobilize its supporters; however, it also carries the risk of shifting the debate from a legal to an identity-based framework. From the perspective of political psychology literature, discourses that constantly emphasize threats, sharpen the “us versus them” divide, and foster intense emotional attachment to the leader may strengthen mass mobilization but can also narrow the space for critical thinking.
The issue here is not so much personal intentions as the societal impact of the style of political communication employed. While an emphasis on institutional reform and legal processes has the potential to defuse crises, a highly charged mobilization rhetoric can generate strong support in the short term but may deepen polarization in the long term. Studies on political psychology and mass behavior show that high-tension mobilization strategies can be quite effective in the short term. Movements organized around a shared perception of threat, a strong leadership figure, and a sharp “us-versus-them” divide can generate broad support during specific periods. However, the sustainability of such mobilization is more debatable. While fear, anger, and a sense of belonging can mobilize the masses, it is difficult for political organizations to survive in the long term on emotional mobilization alone. Institutional capacity, legal legitimacy, organizational stability, and the ability to address everyday problems become increasingly decisive over time. For this reason, while not always immediately, the masses often reassess based on results; as the gap between emotional attachment and concrete performance widens, support relationships also begin to shift.
For this reason, the debate within the CHP can be viewed not only as a leadership contest but also as a clash between two distinct styles of political governance and communication.
Conclusion
Democratic politics requires that different ideas be able to coexist.
The strength of a movement is measured not by the loyalty shown to its leader, but by its capacity to tolerate criticism.
Because one of the most important truths history has shown is this:
Leaders can make mistakes.
Management can make mistakes.
Crowds can make mistakes.
However, when the mechanism for criticism disappears, the possibility of correcting mistakes also disappears.
For this reason, the real danger for a political movement is not its opponents; it is the replacement of critical thinking with blind loyalty.
What threatens democracy is often not external attacks, but the end of internal questioning. Historical experience shows that the masses are not entirely irrational. While crowd psychology may generate emotional fluctuations during certain periods, in the long run, the fate of social movements is determined not by slogans alone, but by their relationship with reality. While constant mobilization and a constant crisis narrative eventually lead to fatigue, the search for institutionalization, predictability, and stability begins to regain importance. For this reason, the true determining factor in political struggles is not so much the ability to mobilize the masses, but the capacity to keep them moving in the same direction over the long term.
Throughout history, many movements have succeeded in rallying their supporters with anger and enthusiasm. However, fewer have managed to keep those same masses united around a common goal for an extended period. The true test of political movements is not rising to prominence during times of crisis, but rather their ability to preserve their institutional legitimacy, organizational integrity, and public trust in the aftermath of a crisis.
History is full of leaders who inspire the masses; however, the ones who leave a lasting legacy are those who can sustain institutions, not just the masses.