The collapse of a political party does not start on election night.
The collapse starts in the mind.
First the idea weakens.
Then the principles stretch.
Then politics,
ceases to be the will to transform society;
it becomes a giant corridor of personal careers.
This is precisely the biggest rupture in Turkish politics today:
De-ideologization.
Because what you call ideology,
not just a few fancy sentences in an election manifesto.
Ideology;
is the ethos of a party.
It is a view of the state.
It is the answer to how to manage the economy.
It is the character of its relationship with the public.
Whether a party is really populist,
determines the attitude towards poverty.
Whether you are a publicist or not,
who delivers public resources to whom.
And whether you are a Democrat or not,
tolerance of criticism within itself.
Because the real political character,
not in slogans of power,
reflexes at the moment of crisis.
The problem in the CHP today is not just a governance debate.
The issue is much deeper.
Because there is now a serious ideological blurring.
On one side:
“populism”, “social democracy”, “publicism”, “equality”, “clean politics”...
On the other side:
networks of relationships,
clique wars,
position accounts,
political immunity reflex
and the attempt to suppress every crisis with the language of propaganda.
This is exactly what erodes public trust.
Because people sometimes forgive defeat.
He forgives mistakes.
He forgives even incompleteness.
But it does not forgive insincerity.
For years:
“There is no resignation culture in AKP”
that says, "I am a political movement,
as soon as it starts generating the same reflexes within itself,
it begins to lose its moral superiority.
And it is not just about resignation.
The real issue is this:
Does a party have the courage to face what is wrong within itself?
Or is everyone part of a silent consensus that protects each other's political comfort?
Because in parties that have lost their ideology,
politics ceases to be a struggle for the people;
It becomes a closed circuit system where cadres distribute positions to each other.
This is the biggest danger today.
Because when the teaching disappears,
and the organization starts to unravel.
And when the organization unraveled,
only the signboards remain.
“PARTY ASSEMBLY OR POLITICAL COMFORT COALITION?”
It is not only the leader that makes a political party strong.
Often they are not even leaders.
Real power;
institutional wisdom.
Organizational discipline.
And the courage to confront what is wrong in oneself when necessary.
Because it is a party,
the moment it loses its internal control,
is no longer a political movement;
It starts to become a closed-loop mechanism of self-interest.
This is precisely the biggest break in the CHP today.
Because there is no longer an ideological affiliation within the party,
position belonging has started to take over.
People are not defined by what they believe,
judged by who they are close to.
The idea is being withdrawn.
Loyalty stands out.
And this situation,
is a fatal stage for any political organization.
Because what you call party discipline,
is not not to question the leader.
Party discipline;
is a reflex to protect the party's institutional identity.
An MP,
a mayor,
a PM member,
engages in relationships that contradict the basic principles of the party,
That is where the party mechanism has to come into play.
Otherwise it is not discipline,
decay begins.
People in Turkey today see a very clear contradiction.
For years:
“There is no resignation culture in AKP”
"the same political reflexes that are criticized,
is now being discussed within the CHP.
There is a failure.
There is an erosion of trust.
There is a serious crisis of public opinion.
But there is no political responsibility.
No resignation.
There is no culture of paying the price.
And most importantly:
there is no real introspection.
While all this was going on, an important part of the Party Assembly was also,
Unfortunately, it fails to give the appearance of an independent and courageous political will to protect the party.
Whereas what you call PM,
is not a political notary office that only approves the decisions of the headquarters.
When it is needed:
“There is something wrong here”
where he should be able to say.
Party from cliques,
networks of personal relationships,
It is the center that must be protected from the politics of saving the day.
But the picture today is quite the opposite.
Because for many people politics is now,
from being a struggle to transform society,
has turned into a career protection mechanism.
Nobody wants to be left off the list.
Nobody wants to lose media support.
Nobody wants to break away from the municipal circles.
Nobody wants to be left out of the system.
So the silence grows.
And in politics sometimes the biggest collapse,
not with loud crises,
comes with institutional silence.
Because in structures where wrongdoing is not punished,
the wrong becomes the system itself over time.
This is precisely the biggest danger in the CHP today.
As the ideological backbone weakens,
organized struggle is giving way to clique wars.
People are now
“Is it true?”
not the question,
“Whose man is this?”
asks the question.
And politics from that point on,
ceases to be a space for discussing the future of society;
becomes a power-sharing table.
This is the fundamental problem that undermines public trust in politics.
Because people don't just want slogans from parties anymore,
wants to see moral consistency.
He wants to see sacrifice.
He wants to see the courage to pay the price.
But most of the time they are against it:
relationship management,
the language of crisis suppression
and trying to preserve their political comfort.
And a political movement,
When it starts to produce in itself the reflexes of the order it criticizes,
just not like his opponent.
It begins to deny its own founding rationale.
“THEY SAID CHANGE, THEY BUILT A NEW STATUS QUO”
Sometimes the biggest manipulation in politics,
is a re-marketing of the same order with new slogans.
Because in some periods the system does not change.
Only the shop window changes.
This is exactly the essence of the debate in the CHP today.
Society:
“change”,
“regeneration”,
“hope”,
“new political language”,
“democratization”
as an important part of the process,
unfortunately it is not an ideological transformation,
It has become a redistribution of power relations.
The old cadres may have changed.
But many of the old reflexes live on.
Because real change is not just about changing names.
Real change;
is to change morality.
It is to change the way politics is done.
To be able to build institutional accountability.
You're at a party:
failure is rewarded,
the wrongdoer is protected,
loyalty trumps merit,
If those who criticize are declared “traitors”, “operation apparatus” or “focus of betrayal”...
There is no change there,
there is only a new status quo.
And society now sees this.
Because people have been listening to the same sentences for years:
“We are different.”
“We are clean.”
“We are democrats.”
“We will be held accountable.”
But the question society is asking today is much more serious:
Who will you hold accountable?
Without any political cost to yourselves?
Without anyone resigning?
With no one taking responsibility?
By covering every crisis with the language of propaganda?
The true character of a political movement,
not by chanting slogans at his opponent;
is measured by its reflex in the face of wrong within itself.
This is precisely where the fundamental historical break that the CHP is experiencing today emerges.
Because society is no longer only about power,
He also questions the opposition.
And this questioning is perfectly legitimate.
Because parties that have lost their ideology,
first it stretches its principles.
Parties that bend their principles,
then legitimizes networks of relationships.
Parties that legitimize networks of relations,
eventually forget their own founding philosophy.
But political parties,
they are not randomly assembled masses of people.
What you call a party;
is the organized will of people united around the same doctrine.
The ideology of a party,
in his view of the economy.
It appears in agricultural policy.
It appears in the industrial approach.
It is seen in who uses public resources.
It appears in the understanding of education.
In foreign policy, it is seen in what interests it defends.
And most importantly:
It is seen in how it confronts what is wrong in itself in a crisis.
The biggest issue facing the CHP today is not elections.
The real issue is this:
Will the party be able to return to its ideological backbone?
Publicism,
organized teaching,
moral consistency,
accountability,
and return to real political discipline?
Or in networks of relationships that save the day,
will it turn into another version of the system he has criticized for years?
Because history has shown us time and again:
Parties that have lost their ideology,
first he loses his bearings.
Parties that have lost direction,
then it loses public trust.
Parties that lose public trust,
eventually only remembered for its own civil wars.
And sometimes a party is not destroyed by its opponent.
Its own silence,
their own fears,
is destroyed by its own ideological collapse.