Politics in Turkey is no longer done only through elections. It is done through perception, discrediting, social media operations and organized hate campaigns. And sadly, today this rotten political language is not only monopolized by the government. The same methods are also circulated within the opposition. The recent attacks against Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu are an indication of this.
A political leader can be criticized. He can also be criticized harshly. This is a natural part of democracy. But something else is happening here. A figure is being systematically targeted, belittled and discredited. And a significant part of those who are doing this are re-serving the language produced by the propaganda mechanism established by the government for years under the label of “change”.
The irony is that those who criticized the phrases used by the Palace media yesterday are now directing the same phrases at their own party leaders. “Losing leader”, “burden”, “name that should be liquidated”... Political debate is no longer based on ideas, but on personal destruction. Because it is hard to produce politics in Turkey; it is easy to lynch.
It is precisely here that Nazım Hikmet's voice from years ago describes today:
“Write it in three columns in black screaming fonts:
Nâzım Hikmet is still a traitor.”
In this country, the label “traitor” has never been applied to real traitors. Those who were called “traitors” in this country were often those who objected. Those who questioned the order. Those who talked about poverty. Those who demanded justice.
Kılıçdaroğlu's story is a bit like this.
Because Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu was not just a CHP leader. He was also a figure who tried to bring issues that could not be discussed in Turkey for years to the center of politics. He was attacked when he said “halalization”. He was targeted when he talked about the Kurdish issue. He was criminalized when he brought up the gangs of five. He was belittled when he talked about poverty. He was mocked when he mentioned SADAT. But today, all of those topics have become one of the main agendas of Turkey.
But in Turkish politics, memory is short and opportunism is big.
Today, a significant part of the discussions within the party in the name of “change” are not ideological but psychological. This is because there is an effort to open up space by scapegoating the old rather than establishing a new political line. That is why some circles are not only criticizing Kılıçdaroğlu but also trying to destroy him politically.
And the way they do it is all too familiar:
First, put the entire burden of failure on one person.
Then discredit it with organized social media accounts.
Then raise the lynch mob.
In the end, call it “renewal”.
But this is not how real change happens.
Real change comes with political courage.
It is about setting principles.
It is about speaking the truth despite your own neighborhood.
It is about not surrendering to what is popular.
Unfortunately, a significant part of the debate within the CHP today is not a debate of ideas, but a struggle for power. And the language used in this struggle is turning into a small copy of the authoritarian politics that the opposition in Turkey has been complaining about for years.
That's why Nazım Hikmet's verses are still alive:
“If the homeland is your farms,
And what's in your safes and checkbooks is the homeland...
...I am a traitor.”
Because in this country, anyone who steps out of the order is always a target at some point. Yesterday it was Nazim. Yesterday it was Uğur Mumcu. Yesterday it was academics who wanted peace. Today it is an opposition leader who is subjected to a political lynching campaign within his own party.
It is one thing to criticize Kılıçdaroğlu; it is another to make him the symbol of all defeats and turn him into an object of collective hatred.
Moreover, there is a fundamental question that no one is asking out loud:
Despite all this talk of “change”, what has really changed?
Has the economic program changed?
Has the understanding of the state changed?
Has labor policy changed?
Has a concrete line on poverty been established?
Has a clearer policy on secularism emerged?
Or is it only the names and the balance of seats that have changed?
The biggest problem of the opposition in Turkey starts right here. The political struggle is becoming increasingly personalized and the ideological ground is becoming empty. The debates move away from the people's livelihood problems, unemployment and injustice and get stuck in clique wars.
And society sees this.
Because citizens are not worried about Twitter operations. The people are worried about market prices, rents, precariousness, lack of a future. But the political class is busy purging each other.
Perhaps this is why Nazım's anger is still relevant.
Because a significant number of those who claim to speak for the people in this country are more interested in power games than the people.
But history has shown this time and time again:
Lynching is not permanent.
Troll armies are not permanent.
Political career calculations are not permanent.
The only question that remains is this:
Who stood on which side in difficult times?