There are some phrases in Turkish politics that become slogans as they are repeated and become unquestionable as they become slogans. In recent years, one of these has undoubtedly been the phrase “he lost 13 elections”.
Yes, CHP failed to win many elections during Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's presidency. This is a fact. However, reading politics only in terms of results means ignoring the process and responsibility.
One has to ask this question: Did Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu lose those elections alone?
Weren't there those who were in the party leadership, those who strategized, those who prepared the campaigns, MPs, mayors and staff at that time? Weren't most of the people who today criticize Kılıçdaroğlu the most harshly on TV screens or social media the ones who were part of the decision-making mechanisms of that period?
In politics, if success is collectively owned, failure should also be collectively evaluated. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening in our country. Success is attributed to everyone and failure is attributed to a single person.
However, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's political legacy should be viewed from a broader perspective. The CHP's efforts to re-establish contact with different segments of society, the search for dialogue with conservative voters, the broad opposition platform created with an emphasis on democracy and law, and the Six Table experience are among the initiatives that will be talked about in Turkish politics for many years to come.
When discussing the CHP's voting potential today, it is important to remember the processes through which this ground was formed. A significant part of the achievements of a political movement today are the result of the steps taken in the past.
But there is a more important side to the issue than the political dimension: Loyalty.
Politics is of course an institution of criticism. Leaders are criticized, changed, even found unsuccessful. But it is another thing to remain silent when a person you sat at the same table with yesterday, fought together, played an important role in your political career is labeled a “traitor” in front of the masses today.
Perhaps this is where one of the biggest shortcomings of Turkish politics emerges. Disloyalty instead of loyalty, anger instead of politeness, personalization instead of debating ideas are preferred. In the end, neither democracy nor the political institution wins.
Maybe we should learn to talk about processes rather than people. Because politics is not only about winning or losing elections. It is also a matter of character, stance and memory.
And societies that lose their memory forget loyalty very quickly.