Talking about the Republican People's Party is not talking about any other political party in Turkey. This sentence has been repeated for years, often seen as a rhetoric, but there is a very concrete reality behind this rhetoric: CHP is the political organization of a founding will. For this reason, every rupture in the CHP is not just an internal party debate; it is directly related to the state tradition, political culture and sense of social direction.
This is precisely why what is happening in the CHP today is not ordinary. This is not a leadership debate. This is not a debate on electoral strategy. It is something much deeper: an identity crisis.
THE REALITY OF THE FOUNDING PARTY AND TODAY'S PICTURE
The main characteristic of a party founded by Atatürk is that it produces a political mind that shapes the conjuncture rather than being shaped by it. This is the historical role of the CHP. This party was not founded just to win elections; it emerged to give a direction, to build a society and to establish a state order.
However, the picture that emerges today shows that the distance between this founding character and contemporary politics is widening.
CHP is no more:
- not directing, but reacting
- taking positions, not setting principles
- adapting to the agenda, not framing it
to a structure.
This transformation is not a technical change. It is a direct loss of direction.
ATATURK'S CHAIR: THE WEIGHT OF HISTORICAL REPRESENTATION
The chairmanship of the CHP is different from the leadership of any other party in Turkey. It is not just a seat of administration. It is this seat:
- represents a historical legacy
- carries an ideological continuity
- imposes a political responsibility
What is expected of the bearer of this office is therefore not only managerial skills. It is the capacity to represent.
This is precisely at the heart of the criticism directed at Özgür Özel today:
Representation has weakened and management has come to the fore.
So the problem is not only what is being done, but what kind of politics is being produced.
MYK AND PM: CADRE CHANGE OR IDENTITY TRANSFORMATION?
One of the most debated topics during Özgür Özel's term was the change of personnel through the MYK and the Party Assembly. At first glance, this change was presented as a “renewal”. However, the criticisms raised within the party and in the public opinion show that this process has a deeper meaning.
The essence of this criticism is this:
This is not just a change of personnel, it is a change of direction.
The criticism voiced within the party that “right-wing cadres have moved to the administrative levels” may seem harsh on the surface, but it is actually an expression of a crisis of belonging.
Because for a party, cadre is not just a matter of name. Cadre also means direction. Cadre also means language. Cadre also means ideological framework.
Therefore, the debate over the FMC and PM turns directly into the following question:
Is the CHP still the CHP?
NEOLIBERAL POLICIES AND THE SHIFT AWAY FROM PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
The historical backbone of the CHP is nationalism. This is not only an economic choice; it is also a political stance. Publicism is the foundation of the CHP's relationship with the state.
Today, however, there is a criticism that is increasingly voiced within the party:
CHP is moving towards neoliberal policies.
This criticism is embodied in the following headings:
- increase in market language
- weakening of the emphasis on the welfare state
- emphasizing pragmatic solutions instead of the public interest
This is not only related to economic policy. It is directly related to the ideological aspect.
And this shift in direction is widening the distance between the CHP and its historical identity.
SERKAN ÖZCAN AND SYMBOLIC DECISIONS
Some decisions in politics are not technical. They are symbolic.
In this sense, Serkan Özcan's decision to head the delegation formed for the Bayram visits is not an ordinary assignment. This decision has led to the following question within and outside the party:
Who does the CHP represent and what political language does it adopt?
Because in politics, people are not only individuals. They are also messages.
NATIONAL UNITY AND SOLIDARITY COMMITTEE: THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE STANCE
The position debates within the National Unity and Solidarity Commission are part of this crisis of direction. Although this topic may seem technical, it is actually ideological.
The issue here is this:
- How does the CHP define the concept of national unity?
- In which political framework does he address this concept?
The lack of clarity in the answers to these questions reinforces criticism that the party's stance has become blurred.
WHERE IS THE REAL BREAK?
The picture so far shows a loss of direction. But the real break is not yet here.
The real break:
- dismissals
- Kilicdaroglu in the process
- in the language of politics
- and crisis of confidence
DISMISSALS, DAGGER POLITICS, THE SHADOW OF ARINCH AND THE COLLAPSE OF TRUST
To understand the debate in the CHP, it is no longer enough to look at the headlines circulating on the surface. Because what appears on the surface is actually the manifestation of a deeper fracture.
This is the name of the break:
is the collapse of trust.
And this collapse is most clearly visible in four areas:
- dismissals
- Kilicdaroglu process
- the language of politics
- and ideological reference shift
EXPULSIONS: CONTRACTION, NOT DISCIPLINE
The expulsion of thirty district heads and hundreds of party members can technically be defined as a disciplinary process. But in politics, it is not technical definitions that matter, but the outcome.
The result is this:
The CHP is unable to bear the plurality within itself.
Who are these people?
- who grew up in the youth wings
- has always been in the field, not during election periods
- kept the organization afloat
- who worked for the party without self-interest
cadres.
The expulsion of these cadres is not just an organizational decision. It shows the weakening of the party's relationship with its own memory.
The feeling that emerges at this point is clear:
Loyalty is not rewarded, difference is punished.
ACCUMULATION OF CONTRADICTIONS: LOSS OF MEASURE
On the one hand, there are those who are rumored to have been dismissed for taking a photo with Gürsel Tekin...
On the other hand, the weak reflex against the heavy insults against Kılıçdaroğlu and his family...
This picture is not a singular contradiction. It points to a deeper problem:
loss of measure.
When the measure is lost in politics, no decision seems fair. And when the sense of justice is undermined, internal party ties dissolve rapidly.
THE KILIÇDAROĞLU PROCESS: HOW DID AN ERA COME TO A CLOSE?
The change of leader in the CHP cannot be read as a classical political change. Because this process is not only an election result, but also a transformation of political culture.
Today, there is an open expression within the party:
“Özgür Özel stabbed Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu in the back.”
This statement may be exaggerated. But what matters is not the truth of the statement, but its existence.
This statement indicates that:
The change of leader has produced a sense of rupture within the CHP.
And the more critical question is this:
What has this rupture replaced?
There is no clear answer to this question.
And every vacuum without an answer breeds distrust in politics.
POLITICAL LANGUAGE: UNCERTAINTY, NOT TOUGHNESS
The language circulating within the CHP today is remarkable:
- false accusations
- discourses of shame
- innuendo and polemic
This language is harsh. But harshness is not the issue.
The point is this:
This language does not generate trust.
Language in politics is not only a means of communication. It is also an indicator of institutional weight. If the language disintegrates, so does the institution.
THE ARINCH CONTROVERSY: MORE THAN A SYMBOL
And now we come to one of the most critical points of the debate:
The issue of Bülent Arınç.
One of the historical references of the CHP is Bülent Ecevit. Ecevit represents the moral and ideological boundaries of this party.
Today, however, the question is being asked openly within the CHP:
Which Bülent is Özgür Özel following?
This question is not a polemic. It is a question of direction.
Because this question poses the following:
- Is the CHP moving forward with its own references?
- Or is it coming under the influence of another political tradition?
This debate is directly related to the CHP's identity.
DISTANCING FROM ECEVİT: NOT JUST A MATTER OF A NAME
Ecevit's politics:
- clean
- net
- populist
- principled
was a line.
Today, critics say:
- weak reflex against corruption allegations
- the language of politics is built on polemics
- pragmatism instead of principle
This difference is not a difference in style.
It is a difference of direction.
INTENSITY OF ALLEGATIONS: MAIN QUESTION
Today, many allegations are circulating around the CHP:
- bribery allegations
- financial recording debates
- processes related to municipalities
- political claims based on personal relationships
- ownership and transparency debates
- The “32 hours of footage” discourse in the context of Manavgat
Each of these claims can be evaluated separately.
But the real issue is this:
Why can so many allegations circulate at the same time and so strongly?
The answer is simple:
Trust is weakened.
MANAVGAT AND IMPLICATION POLITICS
“The ”32 hours of footage" is a dangerous threshold in politics.
This discourse opens up two possibilities:
- either there is information that has not been disclosed
- or it is an instrument of oppression
Both possibilities are problematic.
Because politics:
- not by implication
- walks with transparency
THE FIVE STONE CIRCLE AND THE ISSUE OF PERCEPTION
The property debates about Özgür Özel are based on the same ground.
The veracity of these allegations is another matter.
But the important thing is this:
Perception is formed.
And politics is shaped not only by facts but also by perception.
NOT A CRISIS, BUT A THAW
Today's situation in the CHP can be summarized in a single word:
This is not a crisis.
This is a thaw.
Because:
- allegations mount
- explanations fall short
- trust is waning
Now all the pieces are united.
Only one question remains:
Where will CHP go with this picture?
And who is responsible for this picture?
IT IS NOT THE PERSON WHO NEEDS TO BE SAVED, BUT THE PARTY ITSELF
There is no need to redefine the picture anymore.
The pieces came together. Headlines overlapped. Debates accumulated.
From this point on, it is not about individual incidents.
The point is this:
The Republican People's Party is experiencing a tension between its historical identity and its current political practice.
And this tension can no longer be ignored.
ACCUMULATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC TABLE
Let us simplify the picture that emerged today:
- Hundreds of expelled party members and shrinking organizational structure
- The rupture during the Kılıçdaroğlu process and the “dagger” discourse
- Staff preferences discussed through the FMC and Party Assembly
- “Criticisms of ”shift to the right" and ideological stretching
- Assessments of a move away from public sectoralism
- Debates on neoliberal tendencies
- The symbolic message debate over Serkan Özcan's chairmanship of the Eid committee
- Uncertainty of position within the National Unity and Solidarity Commission
- Increasing distance from the Ecevit line
- The question of direction raised by the Bülent Arınç controversy
- Publicized allegations of bribery and financial processes
- Debates on ownership and transparency
- The “image” discourse in the context of Manavgat
- The recurring debates on “sham” and “trust”
Each of these topics can be discussed on its own.
But taken together, what emerges is clear:
This is no longer a problem of singular events, but a problem of direction.
FROM IDENTITY EROSION TO IDENTITY CRISIS
Political parties change over time. This is natural. But this change must have a direction and a limit.
The change in the CHP today produces uncertainty rather than a transformation.
- Principle is weakening
- Roster debates are on the rise
- Political language is fragmenting
- Trust is declining
This picture is not an “erosion” but a further step forward:
An identity crisis.
WHAT IT MEANS TO BE THE PARTY OF ATATURK
This is where the CHP differs from other parties.
This party is not just a political structure.
This party
- The founding will of the Republic
- Carrier of state tradition
- It is the center of a sense of political direction
The standards for CHP are therefore different.
In this party:
- Trust debate is not a luxury
- Transparency is not a choice
- Principle is not an option
These are a must.
RESPONSIBILITY: IMPERSONAL BUT PERSONAL
At this point, a clear distinction must be made:
This is not just a matter of one person.
But this is also clear:
At the center of this picture is leadership.
Because:
- Leadership determines the cadres
- Leadership is the language of politics
- It is leadership that draws the strategy
Therefore, the responsibility for the picture that emerges is also centered in this center.
This is not a personal accusation.
This is a natural consequence of political responsibility.
NO LONGER A QUESTION, BUT A MOMENT OF DECISION
Today, the CHP has two paths in front of it:
Path one:
Normalize this picture and move on.
Second way:
Recognize this picture as a crisis and embark on a process of rebuilding.
These two paths cannot be walked at the same time.
THE CLEAREST TRUTH: NO POLITICS WITHOUT TRUST
The basis of politics is trust.
If you do:
- if the allegations are not closed
- discussions are growing
- raising questions in society
The real problem there is not individual incidents, but the breakdown of trust.
And loss of trust is the worst crisis in politics.
The Republican People's Party is a structure above individuals.
No one is bigger than the CHP.
But the CHP cannot represent itself with a picture that constantly generates controversy.
It is therefore clear what needs to be done:
Either these discussions should be ended in an open, transparent and non-controversial manner,
or that office should not be held in the shadow of these debates.
Today, the clearest option for the Republican People's Party to preserve its historical weight is the following:
Özgür Özel must either resolve this crisis of confidence once and for all,
or he should step down to protect the party's founding identity.
Because it is not about one person.
The issue is the future of the party founded by Atatürk.