In war, sports, politics, in other words in every field of struggle, if ’labor‘ has been one pillar of winning, ’strategy' has been the other.
The path to victory lies in the right strategy and sacrificial labor.
The AK Party, which has been in power in Turkey for a quarter of a century, came to power and has been in power for this long period of time thanks to the right strategy and a great deal of hard work.
The right strategy is the domestic popular resistance to the exhausted credibility of the existing system and its actors. ‘New Turkey’ was his target.
In this new Turkey, not only the old actors would be out of the game, but also the old system would be liquidated. Because the ‘system’ could no longer generate consent in society.
The political crises of the 90s, February 28, the earthquake and the 2001 economic crisis that followed reinforced the belief in society that there would be no solution with the existing actors within the existing system.
Of course, the strategy was not only based on this. In the international picture, it actually used the thesis that the current system was ‘not useful’ for the establishment as a trump card in its favor.
As a matter of fact, for the US, none of the civilian, bureaucratic and military power centers in Turkey were involved in its plan for the invasion of Iraq. ‘favorable partner’ It wasn't.
They needed a single party government with which they could easily cooperate, and the founders of the AK Party had established contacts with the US even before the party was founded. ‘assurance’ was giving it away.
The current coalition did not inspire confidence in the IMF and its financial masters to implement the economic program put in place by Kemal Derviş for at least 5 years without making any concessions.
The AK Party is also ‘if we have a strong single party government, we will not compromise on the program’had given guarantees to both the IMF and the financial masters.
What happened afterwards, the policies implemented and the ‘don't sweep it under the rug’ outburst also reveal that all this is more than a guess, but a rough x-ray of the recent past.
As for the labor part of the work, it is an undeniable fact that the AK Party organizations put forth a great effort by going street by street, house by house, door by door, and that the party's top cadres were in a corresponding rush in the early years.
The opposition, led by the CHP, has been fighting for a long time to end this long rule that is approaching a quarter of a century.
In the 2023 elections, it came very close to ending an authoritarian rule through the ballot box.
There was a strategy at work at the time and for some actors of the six-party table ‘intensive labor’ and the fight against the Six Table. However, the election could not be won and the joint candidate of the Table of Six, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu %48 votes. This result, ‘this time I think we will succeed’ "I don't want to be a part of the opposition," the opposition voters said.
Rather than accounting for why the election could not be won, the internal opposition seized power within the party by inflating its sails with the anger of the opposition voters for losing and by bringing other ‘enabling’ factors into play.
Nearly 3 years have passed since the elections and today, the debate from 3 years ago is back in circulation in the CHP:
‘Who is the winning candidate?’
In the current situation, Ekrem İmamoğlu seems to be out of the equation. The situation of Mansur Yavaş, one of the two remaining strikers, is uncertain. Judging by the tendencies of some media close to the CHP and elites within the party, there is no obstacle to Özgür Özel's candidacy.
As someone who has been insistently advocating since the 38th Congress that the CHP's presidential candidate in the first election will be Özgür Özel, this picture, which is not surprising for me, may be surprising for some, but we are talking about a process that is being woven step by step.
Let's talk about the CHP's strategy regardless of its candidate.
The polls released by the research companies show that the 35-40 percent band ‘undecided voters’ and its audience, ‘no party can solve the country's problems’ ’Which candidate will get how many votes against Erdoğan?‘ does not attract the attention of CHP elites as much as the question ’Which candidate will get how many votes against Erdoğan?".
Because the CHP's strategy is entirely based on this. And the biggest desire of the names that come forward as candidates is to take their place in the history of both the CHP and the country as ‘the leader who defeated Erdoğan’.
On the one hand, this reinforces the perception of Erdoğan as a ‘leader who is hard to defeat’, and on the other hand, it reinforces the so-called ‘one-man regime’ of the Presidential Government System.
Whereas the CHP has defined its strategy as ‘The candidate who will defeat Erdoğan’ not to determine it, ‘The will to end the system established by Erdoğan’ on which to build.
There are two main reasons for this.
The first is the habit Erdoğan has created as a leader who has received the votes of 2 out of every 3 voters at least once. This habit strengthens the tendency of voters to ’choose the known‘ when they are undecided.
Voter ‘don't try the untried’ behavior, which results in a change of power, is only possible if they see an alternative that will end the current system they are uncomfortable with.
The CHP's main claim is that Erdoğan's entourage has been depleted of meritorious and qualified staff, leading to an administrative weakness.
In this situation, a strategy that focuses solely on defeating the leader overshadows the CHP's ability to stand out in terms of its relatively superior and strong cadre.
Most importantly, it will end a system that creates and deepens poverty. ‘alternative program’ on the focus on the future of the world ‘the candidate who will win‘ to persistently continue the debate.
Lenin's famous ‘weak link’ theory. According to the theory, imperialism will start to collapse from its weakest link.
The CHP is the weakest link in a quarter-century of power. -program and staff- instead of hitting the leadership of that government where it is strongest, it puts itself at a disadvantage from the start.
It is a fact that Erdoğan has outpolled his own party in every election.
The electorate that retired the old system and its actors in 2002 may have changed to a great extent. However, the desire of societies to change the existing system they are unhappy with with their own votes is still there.
As long as the right strategy, a reassuring program and staff are put in front of that audience and everyone ’works’ for real success.
A mistake in strategy can be corrected in implementation plans. But when the basic strategy is wrong, it is not possible to compensate for it with tactical moves on the ground.
There is no point in poking the elephant with a stick. If you want to topple the elephant, you have to have a solid and patient strategy. Otherwise it will be inevitable to be crushed under the elephant's feet.