Punishment and Reward Are Essential for Purification!

There are two common systems regarding party discipline. In countries where polarization is not severe, flexibility and avoiding strict party discipline serve as a balancing mechanism. Strict discipline, on the other hand, is a more ideological political tool. In any case, the issue hinges on choosing a method that is consistent within itself. When it comes to enforcing discipline, if you wield the sword on both sides when it suits you, your objections to disciplinary measures directed at you will lack credibility. What sustains all organized structures is discipline focused on the goal, not the form.
The success of a political perspective that makes purification its primary goal depends on concrete conditions.
“No effort can bear fruit unless the answers to the questions ”how“ and ”with whom“ are made clear from the outset. In Turkish politics, corruption is a serious and deep-rooted problem that transcends party lines. At this point, it has reached a level that threatens public safety and international independence. Corruption and decay have engulfed all political identities and affiliations. Attempting to categorize thieves based on their identity and making a distinction between ”our thieves“ and ”them“ is a problematic perspective that lies at the very core of this issue. The harsh reaction to what the ”other“ does stems not from opposition to corruption itself, but from opposition to the person committing it. Therefore, it makes no difference whether the thief is a ”nationalist,“ a ”conservative,“ a ”leftist,“ or a ”democrat.” The arbitrary use of public property—seizing it for personal gain rather than the common good—must be opposed regardless of the ideological framework it draws upon. The second question that demands as much seriousness as “who” is “how.” The question of where to begin the purge also holds clues as to how to begin it. If you are brave enough to start with those closest to you, you demonstrate the free will of one who has nothing to lose; but if you reflexively fall back on the defense that “it should start with those in power” or “it should start with the other party,” you must consider that the other side might respond with the same reflex. In this scenario, the courage for purification can never be demonstrated, and the step cannot be taken. Regardless of which segment has its resources stolen or plundered, only the thieves change. Shifting the entire moral and political responsibility solely onto the shoulders of the judiciary and investigative bodies is an evasion of responsibility. The principle of “presumption of innocence until proven guilty” pertains to law and criminal proceedings. However, if the social conscience—the general and widespread belief—has come to accept that corruption and theft are inherent in the nature of politics, then what will shatter this perception and reignite the hope for a “clean society, clean politics” may be to cut into every place where a foul odor emanates and demand accountability no matter where the trail leads. If democracy is a system of accountability and holding people to account, then defending the will of the people also means protecting public resources from all forms of theft in the public sphere.
Intra-party democracy and mechanisms for internal opposition are not based on a party’s fundamental perspective or the core principles of politics, but rather on methods and efficiency. Turning a blind eye to actions that are incompatible with party ethics is not tolerance or pluralism.