Volition, Sham and Legitimacy
We are discussing an outcome, not the cause
Every political crisis consists of two stories.
The first is the story that everyone sees.
The story that made headlines in newspapers, was discussed on television screens and circulated on social media...
The second is the invisible story.
The process that leads to that outcome.
The reasons that prepared that crisis.
The mindset that made that collapse possible.
This is exactly what is happening in the CHP's congress debate today.
Everyone is talking about the result.
He is talking about signatures.
Their delegates are speaking.
Speaking at the assembly.
He is talking about who will win.
But no one is asking the question:
How did the CHP get to this point?
Because no crisis of legitimacy emerges overnight.
No institutional decay happens suddenly.
No political movement wakes up one morning and loses confidence.
These are the results of long processes.
This is exactly what the CHP is experiencing today.
A party that has been making politics with the rhetoric of democracy for years is today discussing its own internal democracy.
A party that has been making politics with the rhetoric of transparency for years is now discussing the transparency of its own processes.
A party that has been practicing politics with the rhetoric of accountability for years is now discussing internal reckoning.
This is not a coincidence.
This is a consequence.
And no outcome can be evaluated independently of its causes.
This is precisely why the congress debate itself is a secondary issue today.
The real issue is legitimacy.
Because politics does not only produce power.
Politics also produces legitimacy.
And once legitimacy is lost, all remaining victories become temporary.
A political movement can lose elections.
But he can win again.
A political movement can lose a leader.
But he can make a new one.
But when a political movement starts to lose trust, then the issue becomes much bigger.
Because without trust there is no representation.
Without representation there is no will.
Without will, there can be no democracy.
This is the real crisis facing the CHP today.
It is not a congress crisis.
It's not a name crisis.
Crisis of legitimacy.
Therefore, the first question to ask is this:
Does the CHP need a new congress today?
Or first confront the reasons that led to this congress debate?
Because trying to change the results without eliminating the causes will only reproduce the same crisis with different actors.
And this is precisely the danger the CHP faces today.
Thinking the convention is the solution.
But a congress is only a result.
The real issue is the ground that gave rise to that result.
And if the ground has started to rot, democracy cannot be built on that ground.
You cannot wash twice in the same water
The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said this two thousand five hundred years ago:
“You cannot bathe twice in the same river.”
Because the river has changed.
The water has changed.
The human being has changed.
Time has transformed everything.
This is precisely the phrase to remember when looking at the CHP's congress debate today.
Because a new legitimacy cannot be produced with the same methods.
New trust cannot be built on the same disputed ground.
Democracy cannot be reborn in the shadow of the same shadows.
And most importantly;
An uncontested result cannot come out of a structure whose will has become disputed.
Today we constantly hear the concept of “delegate will”.
So what is willpower?
Just voting?
Just going to the polls?
Just a majority?
No, no, no.
Will is first and foremost free choice.
It is an independent choice.
It is a choice free from coercion.
It is preference without self-interest.
Because what makes the will valuable is not its outcome, but the way it is formed.
This is the debate that the CHP is at the center of today.
Allegations about the congress process...
The alleged influence on the delegates...
Expectations of office
Political position calculations...
Promises of jobs
Relationships allegedly conducted through municipality facilities...
It all boils down to a single question:
Is the resulting will really a free will?
Because democracy is not just about votes cast in the ballot box.
Democracy is the conditions under which that play emerged.
Democracy is how independent that choice is.
Democracy is how free the will remains.
Today, the CHP faces a serious problem of legitimacy that stands at this very point.
Moreover, the issue is not only theoretical.
The delegation structure itself has also been at the center of serious debate.
Delegates under court injunctions...
Detained delegates
Delegates leaving the party...
Expelled delegates...
Names mentioned in the investigation files...
When all this comes together, we see not just a congress debate, but a crisis of representation.
And the question to be asked here is very clear:
Can a structure whose representation has become questionable generate new legitimacy?
Can a will formed in the shadow of shame produce a result free of shame?
Politics sometimes requires facing the bitter truth.
This is the reality that the CHP must face today.
Legitimacy cannot be built with the votes of delegates who put their will up for sale.
In exchange for money
In exchange for office
In exchange for work
In exchange for the future account...
A will that changes direction is no longer the will of the members it represents, but of the power it has come under the influence of.
Democracy cannot emerge from such a ground.
Only conclusions.
A winner may emerge.
But trust does not.
Management can exit.
But there is no legitimacy.
A congress can be held.
But purification does not take place.
Because democracy is not a matter of numbers.
It is a question of moral ground.
It is a question of legitimacy.
It is a matter of trust.
This is why the main question before the CHP today is not “To hold a congress or not to hold a congress?”.
The question is this:
Is the ground on which the congress stands solid?
Because if the ground is rotten, every structure built on it will surely collapse one day.
And democracy cannot be built on rotting ground.
CHP in the Shadow of Sham
The biggest capital of a political party is not votes.
It is not a municipality.
He is not an MP.
It is not media power.
The biggest asset of a political party is its credibility.
It is the trust that society has in him.
Because people support political parties not because they are perfect, but because they believe they are different.
This was the CHP's historical claim.
Being the founding party of the Republic.
Representing public morality.
To represent the seriousness of the state.
Defending meritocracy.
Advocating for transparency.
Advocate for accountability.
However, the picture that has emerged in recent years shows that the CHP is facing a severe test in precisely these areas.
Today, when we look back, we see a disturbing picture.
Manavgat was discussed.
Beşiktaş was discussed.
Seyhan was discussed.
Marmaris was discussed.
Buca was discussed.
Uşak was discussed.
The case of Aziz İhsan Aktaş was discussed.
The tender debates around the municipalities were discussed.
There were allegations of recruitment.
Relationships of interest were discussed.
Investigations were discussed.
Operations were discussed.
So what was the CHP talking about while all this was happening?
Was he talking about the congress as strongly as he is today?
Did he hold them to account as loudly as he does today?
Was it as organized as it is today?
Was he reflexing as fast as he is today?
No, no, no.
This is the source of insecurity in people's minds.
Because citizens see this:
There is silence as the party's name has been linked to allegations of fraud.
But when the seats start to be discussed, there is an extraordinary movement.
There is silence while the party's reputation suffers.
But when the balance of power shifts, everyone stands up.
This is the problem of sincerity that the public is questioning.
Because politics is measured not only by what you say, but also by how you react and when.
The biggest test for a political movement is a moment of crisis.
It is precisely in those moments that it becomes clear who is protecting the party and who is protecting the seat.
This is the main problem facing the CHP today.
Because there is a bigger issue behind the congress debate:
The erosion of moral superiority.
Yet for years, the CHP criticized its rivals from this very point.
He criticized it for non-transparent relations.
He criticized it for recruitment.
He criticized it for the use of public resources.
He criticized party-state relations.
Today, some of the same questions are knocking at the CHP's door.
That is why it is not only a legal issue.
Nor is it political.
It is also moral.
Because it is not only the charter that sustains a political party.
It is his conscience.
It is the capacity for self-control.
The courage to hold wrongdoers to account instead of protecting them.
This is exactly what the CHP needs today.
Not a defense reflex.
Courage to confront.
Not denial.
Transparency.
It is not purification.
Reckoning.
Because throughout history, great political movements have been weakened by ignoring their own internal decay before being destroyed by their rivals.
They have lost power by alienating themselves from their own slogans.
When the distance between what they stand for and what they do is widened, they lose social support.
This is the question before the CHP today:
Will the party confront the shadows cast over it?
Or will he spend all his energy on the congress debates and postpone the real issue?
Because it must not be forgotten;
In the shadow of shame, not only congresses are lost, but also trust.
And no victory of a political movement that loses trust will last.
Reconstructing Legitimacy
Every political movement comes to a crossroads at some point in its life.
On the one hand, there is the reflex to preserve the existing order.
On the other side, the courage to face oneself.
On the one hand, there is saving the day.
Saving the future on the other side.
The Republican People's Party is at just such a crossroads today.
Because it is no longer just a question of who will be the president.
It is not only a question of who will enter the Party Assembly.
It is not only a question of which group will emerge victorious from the convention hall.
The question is what kind of party the CHP will be in the future.
Today, both those who want a convention and those who oppose it have to face the same question:
What will happen after the congress?
Suppose the congress is held.
A new administration was elected.
New cadres were created.
New slogans were found.
And then what?
Will the question marks hanging over the party disappear?
Will the debate on the delegation structure come to an end?
Will the allegations around the municipalities be forgotten?
Will the eroded public trust come back on its own?
Of course not.
Because trust is not earned through elections, but through accountability.
Legitimacy is strengthened by transparency, not majority.
Democracy is not only about the ballot box, but also about the purity of the road to the ballot box.
That is why what the CHP needs today is not a new congress, but a new legitimacy contract.
First of all, the party has to be honest with its own members.
All discussions on the congress processes must be clarified.
The mechanisms that make decisions on behalf of the party must become transparent.
The delegation system should be renegotiated.
The will of the member must be brought back to the center.
Because the solution to the crisis of representation is to produce more representation.
It is to generate more participation.
It is to produce more transparency.
Likewise, all discussions around municipalities should be handled with institutional reflexes, not political reflexes.
Protecting a mayor is not protecting the CHP.
Protecting an executive is not protecting the CHP.
Protecting a group is not protecting the CHP.
To protect the CHP is to protect its moral superiority.
And sometimes the way to protect an institution is to confront some names.
Because throughout history it has been self-criticism, not loyalty, that has made great political movements grow.
Structures that consider criticism as hostility have shrunk.
Structures that protect the wrongdoer are rotten.
Structures that could not come to terms with themselves lost their ties with society over time.
This is the danger facing the CHP today.
Making the assembly a cause.
But a congress is not a goal.
It is a tool.
The goal is legitimacy.
The aim is to reproduce trust.
The aim is to reunite the Republican People's Party with its founding values.
Because the CHP's founding philosophy is not a struggle for seats.
It is the founding will.
It is public morality.
It is the idea of the Republic.
And that is exactly what is needed today.
Not new slogans.
Not new fronts.
Not new factions.
Not new accounts.
A new political morality.
A new corporate transparency.
A new ground of trust.
So let's go back to the question at the beginning of this article:
Does the CHP need a congress today?
Or to confront the reasons that made the congress necessary?
The answer to this question is also the answer to the future of the CHP.
Because without cleansing there is no renewal.
There can be no trust without accountability.
There can be no legitimacy without trust.
There can be no democracy without legitimacy.
And without democracy, no political victory is lasting.
That is why the last thing that needs to be said today is this:
Truth first.
First, reckoning.
Purification first.
Trust first.
Then the congress.
Because democracy cannot be built on rotting ground.