What Does Success in Politics Mean?
In Turkish politics, the concept of “success” is often reduced to ballot box results. However, this is not all there is to it. The success of a leader is measured not only by the elections he/she wins, but also by the vision he/she puts forward, his/her power to convince the society and most importantly, his/her capacity to march to power. It is precisely within this framework that the debate on Özgür Özel's “success” gains meaning.
For many years, the Republican People's Party has been searching for an identity and direction. This search has led to a growing demand for change within the party and a new leadership has emerged. The arrival of Özgür Özel is a breaking point in this sense. Challenging the status quo, re-establishing the balance within the party and the emergence of new cadres is undoubtedly a success in terms of “political mobility”. However, the critical question here is this: Has this mobility translated into real confidence in the eyes of the electorate?
Local Elections and Collective Success
The local election results are presented as the strongest argument in Özel's favor. The success in metropolitan cities showed that the opposition is still alive. But how accurate is it to attribute this success to the leadership alone? Any analysis that excludes factors such as candidate profiles, the economic conjuncture and voters' reaction to the current government is incomplete. Therefore, even if there is a success, it is a collective success; it is not so simple that it can be attributed to a single name.
Becoming an Alternative to Power
The real issue lies elsewhere: The opposition's capacity to be an “alternative to power”. This is where the picture becomes blurred. Concrete and feasible policies that will convince voters in key areas such as economy, justice and education are still not visible enough. There is criticism, even harsh criticism, but the language of solutions is not as clear. Voters now want to hear not only what is wrong, but also what will be done right.
Sound, No Results
Another problem is the influence of the opposition. In political communication, being visible is one thing, but producing results is another. Harsh speeches on the floor of parliament or loud criticism in the squares lose their impact after a while if they do not translate into concrete gains. The biggest dilemma of the opposition today lies precisely here: There is sound, there is echo, but results are limited.
Alliance and Election Mathematics
The issue of alliances is another topic. Politics, which was carried out with a broad opposition bloc in the past, is today more fragmented. This can be read as a strategy of “getting stronger alone”. However, in a country like Turkey where electoral math is critical, this strategy is not without its risks. Politics is not only identity, but also arithmetic.
On top of all this, the issue of expanding the electoral base is still unresolved. The CHP's traditional base is strong, loyal and mobilized. But this is not enough to win elections. As long as the depth of the relationship with swing voters, youth and conservatives remains limited, the goal of power remains a distant possibility.
Liquidation and Legitimacy Test
Politics is a field where not only the seats won are debated, but also how they got there. Therefore, a change of leader, especially if this change is characterized by discussions of “liquidation”, brings with it not only a new name but also a new test of legitimacy. Today, the post-Kemal Kilicdaroglu situation and the new era shaped under the leadership of Ozgur Ozel are being tested by the debates on change and purges within the party.
The change within the Republican People's Party is read by some as a “renewal” and by others as a clear “purge”. This distinction is at the heart of the matter. Because success in politics is measured not only by the result, but also by how legitimate and inclusive the process leading to that result is.
Benefits and Risks After Liquidation
Leaderships that come after purges start with an inherent advantage. The weariness of the old leader, the rising demand for change and the grassroots expectation of a “fresh start” provide the new leader with a significant room for maneuver. From this perspective, the short-term successes are not surprising. However, the permanence of these successes is a completely different question.
Because leadership that comes with purges carries with it an invisible burden: Distrust. If the base of the former leader is not fully convinced, the fractures within the party deepen. These fractures are silent at first, but come out at critical moments. Loss of motivation during election periods, reluctance in the field and arguments behind the scenes are the natural consequences of this process.
More importantly, the biggest dilemma of post-liquidation leadership is the risk of “not being able to write its own story”. If the new leader owes his or her existence solely to the absence of the old leader, this is not a success, it is gap management. In politics, vacancies can be filled, but lasting leadership can only be built with a strong vision.
The Future is Still Uncertain
The real question today is this: Is the new leadership really paving a new path, or merely replacing the old era? If there is no strong economic program, a clear vision for governance and a political language that convinces broad segments of society, the achievements are bound to be temporary.
Purged leaderships are usually destined to take one of two paths. Either they become an interim period marked by short-term successes but forgotten in the long run... or they build their own legitimacy with a performance strong enough to leave all controversies behind. There is only one yardstick for this: Convincing the electorate and becoming an alternative to power.
Conclusion: Transition or Lasting Success?
In conclusion, it would be premature to make a sharp judgment such as “successful” or “unsuccessful” for Özgür Özel's leadership. To make a more accurate definition: This is a transitional leadership. It is a period that initiated change within the party, brought movement, but has not yet been able to transform this movement into a strong alternative to power. Success after the purge is possible, but it is inherently fragile, constantly questioned and tested. The cruel rule of politics is this: If a leader cannot surpass his predecessor, he remains in his shadow.
Today, the issue is not just a change, but whether that change will evolve into a real transformation. Otherwise, history writes about such periods with a single sentence:“The leader changed, but the story remained the same.”