“When you see a mistake, a deficiency in the party, you will criticize unconditionally.
It is extremely wrong to tolerate any wrongdoing; the harm is greater than the benefit.”
- Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, CHP 3rd Ordinary Congress (1931)
Turkish politics today is read not by election results but by confidence maps. Because in modern democracies, voter behavior is shaped not only by economic performance or ideological slogans. Voters make choices based on their psychological confidence in who and how will govern the country tomorrow. The picture emerging in Turkey shows that this sense of trust has seriously collapsed both in state institutions and in the opposition.
The fact that large segments of society say “I do not trust any institution” is not an ordinary dissatisfaction. This is a political alarm indicating that the psychological contract between the state and society has been broken. However, the real fracture in Turkey is the failure of the opposition, which is supposed to fill this trust gap, to do so.
Democracy is not only a system for producing power. Democracy is also a system for producing strong and credible alternatives. Where alternatives cannot be produced, democracy may technically exist, but its capacity to generate political legitimacy is weakened.
At the center of the perception that the opposition's capacity to generate trust has weakened in Turkey is the Republican People's Party.
The CHP is a party that represents the founding political tradition of the Republic of Turkey. The CHP's political legitimacy is not only based on its ideological heritage, but also on its claim to institutional governance. Throughout its history, the CHP has been seen not only as an opposition party but also as a political organization with a state governance reflex.
Today, however, the CHP appears to be rapidly exhausting this historical claim.
The ideological drifts within the party, political groups blaming each other, and actors from different political backgrounds struggling for power within the party distract the CHP from being an institutional structure and turn it into an arena of factions.
The harsh criticism of each other by names from the nationalist tradition within the CHP, the showdown within the party between actors with different ideological backgrounds, and the debate over what Ataturkism is in a party founded by Atatürk are not only ideological debates for the CHP. This is a structural rupture that shows the blurring of the party's political identity.
Looking at the CHP's candidate profile today, there are strong criticisms that the party has moved away from its historical cadre tradition. The political continuity of the party is weakened by the fact that names who were not raised in the party culture and who do not carry the CHP's ideological and institutional memory have become influential at the administrative levels.
What is more striking is that this transformation is not sufficiently questioned by the party base. The fact that a significant portion of CHP voters do not recognize or ignore this change leads to a deepening of the ideological dissolution within the party.
However, the crisis in the CHP is not only ideological. The real break is the disappearance of the most fundamental principle of political governance: the severing of the link between authority and responsibility.
The most basic rule of politics is this:
The one who exercises authority is responsible for the outcome.
The picture that emerges in the CHP today is exactly the opposite. Decision-making mechanisms have been centralized, candidate nomination processes have come under the control of narrow cadres, but the responsibility for emerging crises has been systematically placed on individuals.
When a mayoral candidate creates public controversy, the responsibility does not lie solely with the candidate. It is the political will that has chosen that candidate. If there are discussions about staffing within the party, the responsibility does not lie solely with individuals. Cadre policy is the direct choice of the party leadership.
Today in the CHP, decisions are made at the center and crises are left to the grassroots.
This is not only a weakness of governance. It is a direct problem of political ethics.
Political ethics is not about distributing loyalty, but protecting merit.
The presidency is not the office of protecting close relations, but the office of establishing justice.
When a political party abandons the principle of merit, it first loses the quality of its staff. When the quality of the cadre falls, the quality of governance falls. When the quality of governance declines, voter confidence collapses. When trust collapses, the political claim disappears.
This is precisely the biggest crisis facing the CHP today: loss of trust.
Voters in Turkey want change. However, they do not want uncertainty. If the opposition fails to put forward a strong and predictable governance model, voters will not want to take risks even if they are not satisfied with the current government.
And this is one of the most painful facts in the history of politics:
Voters sometimes prefer not what is right but what is safest.
The biggest threat facing the CHP today is not the strength of its rivals. The biggest threat the CHP faces is the insecurity generated by its own governance style.
Decorum of Authority and Responsibility
CHP Presidency and the Crisis of Political Style
In politics, there are some mistakes that can be apologized for.
There are some mistakes that can be interpreted as personal weaknesses.
However, there are some mistakes that call into question not only the individual but also the legitimacy of the office they represent.
The chairmanship is just such an office.
The person sitting in that seat is no longer an ordinary politician. That office represents not only the leadership of a party, but also a political tradition, an institutional memory and a claim to govern the state. For this reason, the language used, the decisions taken and the political reflexes established by the chairman cannot be considered merely as individual behavior. Every word uttered by the chairman is an institutional statement and directly generates political responsibility.
In the tradition of state and politics, this is called the responsibility of representation.
Leadership is not only about mobilizing crowds. Leadership is about de-escalating tensions in times of crisis, elevating the language of politics and generating institutional dignity. The hardening of political tone, the normalization of insulting language and the transformation of personal polemics into party management style are not just communication failures. This is a direct crisis of leadership.
The harsh and insulting language used in the recent messages allegedly sent by the CHP chairman about some local executives has increased the debate on political and moral erosion within the party. If these allegations are true, the language used is not only a political mistake. It is a serious breach of respect for the CHP's historical political tradition.
The office of CHP Chairmanship is an office that represents the founding political tradition of the Republic of Turkey. It represents a historical responsibility carried by Atatürk and İnönü. Therefore, this seat cannot be the address of personal outbursts of anger, internal political showdowns or insulting language.
The language used at the top of politics is directly reflected at the grassroots. Harsh and insulting language used by leaders does not only increase intra-party tensions; it poisons political culture and deepens social polarization.
However, the problem in the CHP is not only a stylistic crisis. There is a deeper problem: leadership authority has become questionable.
Modern political sociology shows that voters seek strong leadership in times of crisis. This tendency is much more pronounced in societies with a history of political instability, such as Turkey. Voters want to see clear and decisive leadership in times of uncertainty.
Today, Özgür Özel is officially the chairman of the CHP. However, official titles alone are not decisive in politics. The increasing political weight of Ekrem İmamoğlu within the party reinforces the perception that there is a bicentric power structure within the CHP.
This may create political dynamism in the short term. In the long run, however, it weakens institutional authority and makes decision-making processes uncertain. When there are multiple centers of power in a political party, the chain of responsibility is broken. It becomes unclear who makes decisions and who is responsible for failures. This leads to a breakdown of institutional discipline.
The existence of different power centers within the CHP makes decision-making processes in the party leadership controversial. This situation directly affects not only internal party balances but also voter perception. For voters, for a party to govern the country, its internal governance model must first be clear and stable.
The CHP's leadership dispute is not only an intra-party power struggle. It directly affects the perception of trust in the governing capacity of the opposition in Turkey.
Leadership in politics is not only about producing tough rhetoric against opponents. Leadership is about showing composure in times of crisis, assuming institutional responsibility and generating internal party discipline. The harsh language, intra-party polemics and management debates within the CHP show that this leadership reflex has weakened.
The current situation in the CHP shows that the balance between political authority and political responsibility has broken down. While the governing power is centralized, the political costs of crises are left to the lower cadres. This situation leads to an erosion of trust within the party.
Leadership in a political party is not just about owning success. Leadership means taking responsibility in times of crisis. If the party leadership avoids accountability for problems that arise, reduces discussions to personal polemics or ignores the process, this further undermines institutional trust.
The CHP is in exactly this dilemma today. Instead of managing crises, the party leadership shows a reflex of trying to control crises. However, politics is not managed by suppressing crises, but by confronting them.
The literacy of office is not only a matter of language. The decorum of office is also the culture of taking responsibility. The language a chairman uses, the staff he builds and the reflexes he responds to crises are a mirror of that party's capacity to govern the country.
If this mirror shows not confidence but uncertainty, voters will not give that party the responsibility of power.
The Collapse of Political Responsibility and the Crisis of Local Governments
The Mesut Özarslan Controversy and Political Accountability
It is not only the criticism of opponents that wears down a political party. It is the internal inconsistencies and the reflex to evade political responsibility that really rot a party. One of the most striking examples of the debates within the CHP today is the Mesut Özarslan issue.
The nomination of a candidate whose political background and merit were questioned and about whom there were serious public debates, followed by growing debates within the party and leaving the process unclear, has created a picture that shows how the mechanism of political responsibility works in the CHP.
The question here is clear and unavoidable:
Why was he made a candidate if he was a name that was alleged to be shady in the public opinion?
If it created controversy within the party, why was the necessary political sanction not applied?
If the criticism was justified, why wasn't he expelled?
These questions are not directed at just one person. These questions are directly directed at the CHP's governance approach.
The most dangerous situation in politics is not taking the wrong decision. The most dangerous situation in politics is to insist on the wrong decision. This is what the CHP has been criticized for most recently: leaving crises to time instead of managing them, obscuring political responsibility and reducing debates to personal polemics.
The Mesut Özarslan controversy has become a symbol of a much bigger problem about how the CHP conducts candidate selection processes. Because this is not just a discussion about a mayoral candidate. It is a questioning of who makes decisions within the party and on what criteria.
Criticisms have long been voiced about the increasing centralization of candidate selection processes in the CHP and the weakening of the influence of local organizations and the party base. The crises that have emerged show that these criticisms are not only an internal party debate, but have become a direct problem of governance.
The power to nominate candidates in a political party is one of the most powerful tools of the headquarters. However, this power also carries with it the heaviest responsibility. If the choice of candidate is wrong, the responsibility cannot be placed on the candidate. Because the candidate does not make himself/herself a candidate. It is the political will that makes the candidate a candidate.
This is the picture emerging in the CHP today:
Decisions are made at the center and responsibility for crises is left to local cadres.
This is not just a weakness of governance. It is a direct problem of political ethics.
The most basic principle of politics is clear:
Those who exercise authority are accountable.
Local Governments Crisis and Keçiören Breakdown
The CHP's strongest political claim in recent years has been local governments. Metropolitan municipalities have been presented not only as a service production area, but also as the showcase of the alternative governance model that the CHP offers to Turkey.
The discourse of transparency, merit and clean governance has formed the basis of CHP's local government strategy. However, politics is not only judged by its shop window, but also by the governance culture behind it.
The picture emerging in local governments today shows that the CHP's strongest political claim has been seriously shaken. Corruption allegations, arrests of municipal staff, resignations and intra-party ruptures can no longer be explained as isolated incidents.
For the CHP, the political rupture in Keçiören is not just a matter of a district municipality. It is a serious crisis of confidence that calls into question the local cadre policies of the party leadership.
Political parties do not become alternatives to power only by winning elections. Political parties become alternatives to power by generating confidence in the areas they govern. If a party is unable to provide stability in the municipalities it governs, if it is unable to maintain the integrity of its staff and if it is unable to control administrative crises, its capacity to govern the country is also questioned in the eyes of voters.
Gokan Zeybek and the Management Responsibility Debate
The political responsibility for the crises that arise in local governments naturally falls on the CHP's administrative cadres in charge of local governments. In this process, the performance of CHP Deputy Chairman Gökan Zeybek has started to be seriously discussed within the party and in the public opinion.
The dissolution of local organizations, management crises in municipalities and cadre ruptures show that the CHP's local government strategy has weakened. In the face of this picture, it is clear that political responsibility cannot be passed over with mere statements.
In politics, responsibility is not carried by holding on to a seat, but by being held accountable. The lack of political accountability in the face of crises of this scale in local governments further undermines institutional trust.
Political responsibility does not disappear with silence. Reducing debates to personal polemics does not cover up the crisis of governance. On the contrary, it deepens the loss of trust.
IBB Debates and the Question of National Leadership
The Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality has been at the center of the CHP's political showcase in recent years. However, debates on IBB subsidiaries, tender processes, staffing structures and the use of public resources have turned into a process that directly targets the CHP's claim to a model of governance.
The critical issue here is not the rightness or wrongness of legal accusations. In politics, perception is often more decisive than legal outcomes. The real question for voters is this:
Will the governance culture really change if the opposition comes to power?
The polemics around IBB directly affect Ekrem İmamoğlu's claim to national leadership. Every controversy that emerges in local governments weakens the perception of trust in national governance capacity.
Historical Crossroads, Political Dissolution and the Existential Crisis of the Opposition
Candidate Profile and Institutional Tradition Debate in CHP
The candidate profiles that the CHP has determined in recent years have caused serious debates within the party and in the public opinion. The nomination of candidates who do not come from party origins, who were not raised in the CHP culture and who do not carry the party's ideological memory increases criticism that the CHP's historical cadre tradition is weakening.
Political parties are represented not only by their programs but also by their cadres. The quality of the cadre is the most tangible indicator of a party's governing capacity. The CHP's historical strength was based on a tradition of trained political cadres. Recently, however, this tradition seems to have given way to more pragmatic and short-term political preferences.
The fact that some influential figures in the party leadership joined the CHP relatively late is interpreted as one of the symbolic indicators of the transformation within the party. This is seen as an important factor weakening the historical ideological continuity of the CHP.
What is more striking is that the party base does not question this transformation sufficiently. The fact that a significant part of the CHP electorate ignores this change leads to a deepening of the ideological dissolution within the party.
When a political party loses its cadre tradition, it loses not only its human resources. It also loses its political memory. When political memory is lost, party identity becomes blurred and the reflex of governance weakens.
The Opposition's Biggest Dilemma: Failure to Generate Trust
Politics in Turkey has turned into a competition of trust rather than ideological competition. Voter behavior is shaped by governance performance and leadership credibility rather than ideological commitment.
The biggest problem the opposition faces today is that, despite producing critical political discourse, it is unable to create a strong perception of confidence in its capacity to govern. Voters in Turkey want change but not uncertainty.
If the opposition is unable to put forward a strong, predictable and institutionalized model of governance, voters are unwilling to take risks, even if they are dissatisfied with the current administration. This is one of the harshest realities of political history: Voters sometimes prefer what is safest, not what is right.
The biggest threat facing the CHP today is not the strength of its rivals. The biggest threat the CHP faces is the insecurity generated by its own governance style.
CHP at a Historical Crossroads
The CHP today stands at one of the most critical thresholds in its history. Either the party will restructure itself through radical transparency, strong leadership and institutional discipline, or it will gradually lose its political influence due to local government crises, leadership disputes and loss of trust.
The biggest risk the CHP faces is that the same governance practices it criticizes will start to be discussed in its own governance areas. This creates an extremely powerful break in the psychology of the electorate. Because when voters think that the culture of governance remains unchanged despite the change of political actors, they lose their trust in the political system.
In Turkey, a loss of trust is much more devastating than an electoral defeat. Because when trust is lost, voters not only change parties but also lose faith in politics.
Solution and Restructuring Suggestions
For the CHP to emerge from this crisis, it must first rebuild a culture of political responsibility.
The first step is to make candidate selection processes transparent. Intra-party democracy can be achieved not only through slogans, but also by opening decision-making mechanisms to the grassroots. It is not possible to generate institutional legitimacy in a structure where local organizations and party members are not truly included in decision-making processes.
The second step is to re-establish the principle of merit unequivocally. Staff structures based on political loyalty may provide ease of control in the short term. But in the long run, they reduce the quality of governance and generate crises.
The third step is to clarify the leadership issue. Dual-centered power structures in politics may create dynamism in the short term. But in the long run they weaken institutional authority and make decision-making processes uncertain.
The fourth step is to restructure the local government model. Establishing independent audit mechanisms in local governments, making procurement processes fully transparent and appointing municipal staff based on professional criteria are essential for the CHP to regain its capacity to generate trust.
The fifth and most critical step is the reconstruction of political style. The language used by leaders determines political culture. The language of insults and anger may lead to political mobilization in the short term, but in the long term it deepens social polarization and erodes political trust.
Primary elections, primary elections, more primary elections...
True democracy in political parties is only possible when members have a say and make decisions. A system in which the party base directly determines the candidates, not narrow cadres, will increase both legitimacy and the power of struggle. For this reason, every candidate, without exception, must be determined by the votes of the members.
Party membership should no longer be a gateway only for candidates to be nominated during election periods. Subsequent membership for the purpose of nominating candidates undermines party culture and organizational labor. This should be explicitly prohibited by statute.
The central quota should be a limited and exceptional tool representing the party's institutional wisdom. The quotas should be narrowed, not expanded, and should only be used for specialists who are capable of becoming ministers and who have national or international prestige in their fields.
Alliances and power alliances should not be formed behind closed doors, but should be submitted directly to the members for approval. The direction of party policies should be determined by the will of the grassroots.
People who do not adopt the party charter and program and who do not connect with the party principles should not be accepted as members. Understandings that have problems with the values of the Republic and Atatürk's revolutions should not be allowed to shelter under the roof of the party.
In-party trainings must be strengthened. The history of the revolution, party history and organizational culture must be systematically explained in a way to raise the political consciousness of the members. A strong organization is possible with conscious cadres.
The organization around the polling stations must be kept alive and strong ties must be established at the neighborhood and street level. Electoral success is ensured by an organizational structure that is constantly in the field, not only during campaign periods.
Commissions consisting of experts in their fields should be established for the production of party policies; scientific and feasible solutions should be developed in areas such as economy, education, foreign policy, local governments and social policies.
Real change is possible through rules, merit and organizational democracy, not slogans.