The defense reflex often does not reveal the truth; it covers the vulnerability. What we see in the CHP today is more an effort to protect its position than political production. As defense increases, the question grows: From whom and what does fear protect?
In describing the nature of political power, Niccolò Machiavelli points to a fundamental truth:
The government is on the defensive when it is most afraid.
This sentence holds a mirror to today's Turkish politics, or more concretely, to the central administration of the Republican People's Party.
For some time now, we have been seeing that the CHP has not been producing politics, but constantly defending itself.
Defense to criticism.
Defense to questions.
Defense to the grassroots.
Defense for Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.
However, a strong political structure acts with self-confidence, not with a defensive reflex. As defensive language increases, two possibilities emerge: Either there is a mistake or there is fear.
The reality is that today the CHP is not discussing ideas, it is discussing legitimacy.
The headquarters administration has been criticizing every criticism within the party. “longing for the old era” or “personal commitment” on the basis of the political mind. However, the issue is not individuals; it is the political mind that is represented.
It is no coincidence that the discussions around Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's name are so intense. When a leader still sets the agenda even after leaving office, there is not a shadow, but a void that cannot be filled.
I would not exclude Mr. Kemal at this point.
If today's debates within the CHP are constantly centered on his name, this shows both the magnitude of his influence and the inability of the new leadership to build an institutional direction.
We cannot escape reality:
A party cannot claim social legitimacy without ensuring its own internal legitimacy.
Let's look at concrete examples.
During the local election processes, the candidate selection debates received intense criticism that they were shaped by the will of the center rather than the will of the organization. Objections from district organizations “discipline” suppressed under the title of "discipline". However, the line between discipline and repression is a thin one; one strengthens the institution, the other increases fear.
We have seen a similar reflex in the public debates over big cases such as Istanbul and Antalya:
Defense instead of clarity.
Counter-attack instead of transparency.
This is not only a political strategy; it is also a psychology.
Why does the language of defense increase?
Because the sphere of power is shrinking.
Because grassroots trust is being questioned.
Because the balance within the party is fragile.
And this is where the real danger begins.
The CHP's institutional history has been strengthened not by suppressing internal debates but by managing them. Ecevit's exit in the 1970s, the restructuring in the 1990s, the expansion strategy after 2010... All were shaped by debate. Today, debate is seen as a risk to be suppressed rather than a dynamism to be managed.
This approach shrinks the party.
The political line represented by Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu was based on the claim of clean politics and institutional wisdom. He can be criticized and debated, but the fact that he created a reference point cannot be denied. If the CHP leadership today still has to define its position through Mr. Kemal, it shows that a new story has not been written.
If a leader is overshadowed by his predecessor, the problem is not in the shadow, but in the will that cannot turn on the light.
My objection is not personal; it is principled.
What the CHP needs today is not defense; it needs clarity.
It is not about holding a position; it is about setting a direction.
It is not politics over names; it is policy making.
Let us not forget:
If the defense is increasing, there is a fear.
And no structure governed by fear can generate trust in the long run.
A politics that does not generate trust cannot carry hope.
This party is not just a headquarters.
This party is a history, an ideology and the hope of millions.
Hope cannot be managed with the language of defense.