Turkish politics has been revolving around the same question for a long time:
Is it the outcome that determines the legitimacy of a decision, or how that outcome is reached?
On the street, on TV, in the corridors of parties, on social platforms... It's always the same debate:
One side seeks quick results, saying “the horse has already passed Üsküdar”.
The other side resists, saying, “If the method is corrupted, the result will be contaminated.”.
In fact, the crux of the matter is this:
Is it important to win fast or to win right?
IS THE RESULT EVERYTHING?
Politics in our country has become similar to soccer. Examples have started to be made through the concepts of football. We hear concepts such as double striker, penalty, technical director a lot. In this way;
“A culture of ”the score is clear, let's not talk about the rest"...
“The ”all roads to power are open" mentality...
“The winner is right, the rest is irrelevant” approach...
It started to dominate.
But state governance is governed by law and method, not by the excitement of the stands.
Even if you get applause when you win, when you win in the wrong way, society always asks the question:
“How was this match won?”
If we clarify the subject with the concepts of sports; Atatürk's words “I love the intelligent, agile and moral athlete”, which he said about a hundred years ago, tells us that the value of success is not in the result, but in the morality of the struggle.
The political aspect of this statement is this:
No victory is legitimate without the right method.
Only if the goal is to cross Üsküdar,
There is no difference between the one who took the Horse and the one who “stole” the Horse.
When the method is rotten, the result looks shiny but does not resonate with the social conscience.
CAN THERE BE LEGITIMACY WITHOUT METHOD?
Of course not. Method is the soul of politics; it is morality, justice, conscience.
It is not enough for a decision to be in accordance with the law; the acceptance of public conscience, transparent process and
accountability is needed.
The CHP's 6 Arrows are the institutional framework for this:
Republicanism protects the rule,
Populism imposes responsibility,
Secularism ensures equality,
Revolutionism rules even change.
In Atatürk's understanding of politics, “how it is done” is as important as “what is done”.
The resistance of the Republic comes from this triangle of method-morality-law.
WHY IS CHP IMPORTANT?
The CHP is the only tradition in Turkey that institutionally rejects the notion of “the horse has passed Üsküdar”.
That is why for years it has been the insurance of the state, the breathing tube of society and the carrier of legitimacy.
If the CHP also abandons the method:
The rule of law dissolves,
The institutional brake mechanism fails,
Mindset change becomes impossible.
This debate is not an internal matter of a party; it is a matter of the democratic future of the country.
A METHOD THAT STRENGTHENS LEGITIMACY, NOT POWER
The path that loses its legitimacy eventually loses its outcome and even its path.
True victory is won with the right method.
The result is temporary; the character is permanent.
The Republic draws its strength not from the results, but from the moral and legitimate method.