We keep hearing the same phrase in recent days:
“We are on the right side of history.”
One can't help but ask:
Which date?
Whose history?
And more importantly...
Who decided that?
Because the history of the Republican People's Party was not written in social media hashtags.
The history of the CHP was not written in television studios.
The history of the CHP was not written in municipal corridors.
The history of the CHP was not written in closed meeting rooms where political career calculations were made.
The history of this party was written in Amasya.
It was written in Erzurum.
It was written in Sivas.
It was written in the First Inonu.
It was written in Sakarya.
It was written in Kocatepe.
It was written during the struggle to found the Republic.
Written in lead.
It was written in blood.
It was written with sacrifice.
Therefore, anyone who talks about the history of the CHP must first be able to carry the weight of that history.
Today we are faced with a strange picture.
A significant number of those who proclaim themselves to be on the right side of history seem to be more interested in where the current power centers are than what history is.
The same reflex is shown in every controversy that arises.
The question is being asked
No response.
The allegation is being made...
No explanation.
The public is waiting for clarity...
There is no transparency.
But there are many slogans.
Many labels.
There is a lot of propaganda.
There is a lot of anger.
Because today some circles are putting the oldest trick in politics back on the stage:
Blaming those who ask questions instead of answering them.
Targeting the speaker of the document instead of responding to it.
Trying to silence the debater instead of enlightening the debate.
And all the while declaring themselves the representatives of history.
However, history is no one's property.
History is not the private property of any political team.
History is not a field that no chairman, no mayor, no group has the right to use.
History is not an applause book, especially for those who stand on the side of power.
History is the memory of those who can ask questions to their own neighborhood when necessary.
This is precisely why today's debates are not about individuals.
Principles are the real issue.
The real issue is this:
Does the Republican People's Party exist to protect the political careers of certain figures?
Or to defend the founding values of the Republic?
Because these two questions must now be separated.
Those who identify the party with individuals today must also explain what will be left when those individuals are gone tomorrow.
And this is precisely why Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's call is so important.
Because that call is not a call to protect a person.
It is not a call to save a political team.
It is not a call to keep a seat.
That call is a call for the allegations to be clarified.
It is a call to dispel the shadows cast over the party.
It is a call for a courageous confrontation within the party itself.
Because movements that fear the truth do not grow.
Movements that run away from reality are not strengthened.
No political structure can be cleansed by silencing the truth.
And throughout history it has not been the questions of the opposition that have started the rot, but the silence from within.
This is the first question to ask those who say today that “we are on the right side of history”:
Are you really on the side of history?
Or do you think standing on the side of power is standing on the side of history?
DOES LOYALTY CHANGE WHEN INTERESTS CHANGE?
In politics, sometimes what people said yesterday is more important than what they say.
Because where there is no memory, there is no principle.
Where there are no principles, there are only positions.
When we look at the debates within the Republican People's Party today, we see exactly such a picture.
Those who until yesterday applauded the same names from the same pulpits...
Those who until yesterday posed around the same leaders...
Those who until yesterday described the same presidents as “heroes of democracy”, “conscience of the party”, “honest politicians”...
Today he comes out and declares the same people to be the owners of all the sins of politics.
And in doing so, he does not feel the slightest need for self-criticism.
One can't help but ask:
What changed overnight?
Has Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu changed?
Has the party's history changed?
Have the principles defended changed?
Or has only the political balance of power changed?
Because you have to be honest.
A person can change his opinion.
They can learn new information.
It can reach different conclusions.
But if you demonize today what you praised yesterday, you are looking for something else rather than a change of opinion.
There political memory is questioned.
Sincerity is questioned there.
There the distance between principle and interest is questioned.
Look carefully at the circles that today proclaim themselves to be on the right side of history.
Some of them did not even pass through the door of CHP until yesterday.
Some of them despised the CHP.
Some of them looked down on CHP voters.
Some of them talked about social democracy as an outdated idea.
But somehow today they are all in the same photo.
They are all behind the same slogans.
They are all in the same chorus of legitimacy.
And they all say the same sentence:
“We are on the right side of history.”
No, no, no.
If it were that easy to be on the right side of history, everyone throughout history would have been right.
Being on the right side of history is not about siding with the powerful.
It is not about gathering around the rising center.
It is not to change principles when you see the winner.
On the contrary, it is to be able to stand in the same place even if the power changes.
This is precisely the problem today.
Because a lot of people are not upholding their principles.
He maintains his position.
He does not defend his conscience.
He is defending his career.
He is not defending the party.
He is defending his own political future.
This makes for a very interesting picture.
Those who demanded accountability yesterday do not want accountability today.
Those who wanted transparency yesterday are uncomfortable with questions today.
Those who called for democracy yesterday are afraid of criticism today.
Those who wanted freedom yesterday target those who think differently today.
And while all this is happening, no one is answering this simple question:
If what you stand for is really a principle, why does the principle change according to the person?
Why is it that when one person does the same behavior, it is a struggle for democracy, but when someone else does it, it is treason?
Why is the same method a law when applied to one and an operation when applied to another?
Why is the same criticism considered freedom when it is directed at one and hostility when it is directed at the other?
Because it is not about principle.
It's about the center.
It's about power.
It is a question of who rises and who falls.
And it is precisely for this reason that most of those who talk about history today are not really interested in history, but in the balance of power.
That is why a significant part of the public no longer looks at the words spoken, but at the background of those who say them.
Because the memory of the people is much stronger than some politicians think.
He knows who stood where yesterday.
He also sees who is standing in a different place today and why.
And that is why the discourse of “the right side of history” increasingly sounds less like a statement of principle and more like an oath of loyalty to the new centers of power.
Because people of principle do not change sides when power changes.
But interests change the owners.
And in the end, history judges everyone not by the words they say, but by the ranks they change.
IMMUNITY IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY
There are some words in politics.
The more often they are used, the more carefully they need to rest.
Today, the most important of these is “democracy”.
Because whenever a question is asked...
Whenever a topic comes up for which the public is waiting for an answer...
Whenever a debate comes up...
Whenever there is a call for accountability within the party...
Someone immediately comes out and says the same sentence:
“They are attacking democracy.”
But there is no one attacking democracy.
There are questions that need answers.
And instead of answering those questions, there are those who try to silence them.
This is the real issue.
Today, some circles are trying to create such a political climate;
Certain names should not be criticized...
Certain cadres should not be questioned...
Certain decisions cannot be discussed...
Certain relationships cannot be discussed...
And then call it democracy.
No, no, no.
This is not democracy.
This is an attempt to produce political immunity.
Because democracy does not protect the politician.
It protects the citizen's right to ask questions.
Democracy does not bless the ruler.
It requires accountability of the manager.
Democracy does not elevate certain people above criticism.
On the contrary, it recognizes that no one is immune from criticism.
But today the opposite is happening.
A group of people see themselves as the owners of the party.
A group of people see themselves as a legitimacy dispenser.
A group of people have turned into political clergy.
They decide who is a democrat.
They decide who is a CHP member.
They decide who is loyal to the party.
They decide who is a traitor.
And the principle is not the only basis for all this.
They are close to power.
This is where the rot starts.
Because if the fear of criticism starts within a movement, it means that self-confidence is over.
When those who ask questions within a movement are declared enemies, it means that the truth has become feared.
When those who think differently within a movement are targeted, democracy has become just a slogan.
This is an important part of what is happening today.
Those who ask questions are silenced.
Critics are discredited.
Those who think differently are declared traitors.
And then they turn around and call it change.
But change is not about silencing criticism.
Change means being able to tolerate criticism.
Because the greatest enemy of truth is not the opposition.
The greatest enemy of truth is the addiction to applause.
Today, some circles think that the public thinks the same because they hear constant applause.
They think social media campaigns are society.
They think their own circle is the nation.
He thinks his slogans are the truth.
But history has repeatedly shown the end of this.
Every structure that saw itself as unquestionable first produced arrogance.
Then he lost touch with reality.
Eventually, he began to believe his own propaganda.
And from that point on, collapse became inevitable.
Today, a significant number of those who say “we are on the right side of history” seem to be in the same delusion.
Because being on the right side of history does not prevent questions from being asked.
On the contrary, it is to defend the right to ask even the most uncomfortable questions.
Being on the right side of history is not about preventing accountability.
On the contrary, it is not running away from accountability.
Being on the right side of history is not about protecting individuals.
It is to protect the principles.
This is why Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's call for confrontation and purification is important.
Because that call is not a call to save specific people.
It is not a call to whitewash certain names.
It is a call for the party to honestly confront its internal debates.
It is a call to answer the emerging debates with clarity, not slogans.
It is a call to see the party as bigger than individuals.
And perhaps that is precisely why it bothers some people so much.
Because the biggest danger for those who want immunity is not the question.
It is to be forced to answer.
And there is one fact that history has shown:
No political movement has ever rotted because of those who asked questions.
But many political movements have collapsed because of those who prevented questions being asked.
ON THE SIDE OF THE WINNER OR ON THE SIDE OF HISTORY?
And let's go back to the beginning.
Because at the center of all these discussions stands a single sentence:
“We are on the right side of history.”
And which date?
The history of the Republican People's Party?
If so, that history was not written in the corridors of the municipality.
That date was not written in the tender files.
That history was not written in social media campaigns.
That history was not written in perception operations.
That history was not written in meeting rooms where political career calculations were made.
The history of the Republican People's Party was written in Amasya.
It was written in Erzurum.
It was written in Sivas.
It was written in the First Inonu.
It was written in Sakarya.
It was written in Kocatepe.
It was written during the struggle to found the Republic.
It was written in the resistance against the occupation.
It was written in poverty.
It was written in sacrifice.
It was written on the shoulders of people who paid the price.
Therefore, those who want to talk about the history of the CHP must first be able to carry the burden of that history.
Today, while some say they are on the right side of history, they seem to be more interested in where the current power centers are than what history is.
Because there are debates that need answers.
There are allegations that the public is talking about.
There are processes that need to be explained.
There are questions that citizens want answers to.
But instead of all this, the same slogan is constantly being circulated:
“We are on the right side of history.”
No, no, no.
Being on the right side of history does not mean unconditional loyalty to any political team.
Being on the right side of history is not about producing truth through individuals.
Being on the right side of history does not mean using one yardstick for names you like and another for those you dislike.
Being on the right side of history does not mean silencing those who ask questions.
On the contrary, it is to defend the right to ask even the most uncomfortable questions.
Because the Republican People's Party is too big to be reduced to the political career of any one person.
No mayor can shrink from it.
It cannot shrink from any general president.
No clique can shrink.
It cannot become the private property of any political group.
And this is precisely why Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's call is important.
Because that call is not a call for a seat.
It is not a call for office.
It is not a team call.
That call is a call for a courageous confrontation within the party itself.
It is a call to dispel the shadows cast over the party.
It is a call for the party to meet its own conscience again.
It is a call for the party to show an openness worthy of its history.
Because movements that fear the truth do not grow.
Movements that run away from reality are not strengthened.
Actions that prevent questions from being asked cannot be cleaned up.
And no political structure can be purified by slogans.
Today, those who claim to be on the right side of history have a very simple choice in front of them.
Either they will see the party as bigger than the individual.
Or they will continue to see individuals as bigger than the party.
Either they will defend principles.
Or power centers.
Either they will follow the truth.
Or slogans.
Because in the end, history gives the same verdict for everyone.
History does not remember slogans.
History does not remember propaganda campaigns.
History does not remember social media hashtags.
History does not remember applause choruses.
History remembers this:
Who stood on the side of truth?
Who stood on the side of power?
Who asked a question?
Who evaded the questions?
Who defended the party?
Who only defended their own political future?
And that is the question at the end of the day:
Were you really on the right side of history?
Or did you think you were on the right side of history because you only stood on the side of the winner?
Because history writes not of those who walk in the shadow of power, but of those who can hold their own neighborhood to account when necessary.
And the history of the Republican People's Party has risen on the shoulders of those who paid the price, not those who applauded.