Who sowed the seeds of discord, and who watered them?
Division is a result, not a cause
To reduce the crisis currently unfolding within the CHP to merely a leadership dispute is to deliberately misinterpret what is happening.
Because the picture before us is the result.
What really needs to be discussed, however, is the process that led to this outcome.
Now those same people are talking about unity, solidarity, party discipline, and the will of the organization.
The question that should be asked, however, is this:
If unity was so important, who drove the CHP to the current state of polarization?
If the organization’s will was so valuable, why was a policy that rendered the organization ineffective for years encouraged?
If party discipline was so important, why was every criticism within the party viewed as “treason,” every objection as “hostility,” and every differing opinion as an “element that must be purged”?
It is not possible to attribute the responsibility for the split within the CHP today solely to the outcome.
Because when discussing the collapse of a building, we should be questioning those who cut the columns, not the rubble.
In my political assessment, the root cause of the division the CHP has experienced in recent years lies in an approach that has distanced the party from its institutional identity and placed it at the center of personal political projects.
Ekrem İmamoğlu, who is seen as a leading figure of this approach, along with the political structure that has formed around him and the personnel who later aligned with this line, have established a new center of power within the CHP, while pushing the party’s history, organizational memory, and traditional balancing mechanisms into the background.
Ultimately, the CHP has moved away from the image of a political movement united around shared principles and has become a arena where various power centers vie for influence.
Those calling for “unity” today must first answer the following question:
If there is a division, is the responsibility for this division solely due to the outcomes, or does the policy that has been pursued for years also play a role in this situation?
Because history teaches us this:
Splits don't happen overnight.
First, the seeds of discord are sown.
Then those seeds are watered with patience.
And the day comes when the consequences of the split are laid bare before the entire party.
This is precisely the issue facing the CHP today.
WHO PLANTED THE SEEDS OF DIVISION?
Has Municipal Power Become Party Power?
There are certain developments in politics where, when the results become clear, everyone acts as if they’re surprised.
In fact, what has happened was already clear years ago.
The split currently taking place within the CHP is similar.
Because this story didn’t start yesterday.
This story began on the day the balance between the party’s organizational strength and the municipality’s power was disrupted.
Throughout the Republican People's Party's century-long history, municipalities have always been one of the party's key instruments.
However, in recent years, the situation has reversed.
The party has been turned into a tool of the municipalities.
The organization was overshadowed by the elected mayors.
The district chairpersons were silenced.
The provincial organizations were neutralized.
Party workers have been devalued.
In their place, a new political aristocracy emerged from the corridors of city hall.
That’s exactly where the turning point began.
In the CHP’s traditional political culture, the organization plays a decisive role.
Because an organization is the very embodiment of self-sacrifice.
Organization is hard work.
An organization is about loyalty.
An organization is made up of people who put up posters during difficult times, guard polling stations, get detained, and face exclusion—yet still refuse to abandon their party.
However, in recent years, attempts have been made to replace this understanding with another one.
Where money is the deciding factor…
Where the media plays a decisive role…
Where perception campaigns play a decisive role…
Work has begun on building a new political model in which municipal resources play a decisive role.
And at the heart of this model was Ekrem İmamoğlu’s rise to political prominence.
The political structure that formed around İmamoğlu gradually began to override the CHP’s natural balancing mechanisms.
Instead of the party organization, it is now the municipal circles that are speaking out.
Backroom dealings have begun to play a decisive role instead of conventions.
Personal political goals took precedence over the party platform.
It was precisely during this period that many figures with no strong connection to the CHP’s historical legacy gained extraordinary influence within the party.
Those who were harshly criticizing the CHP just yesterday have started speaking on its behalf.
People who, until just yesterday, were aligned with other political parties have attempted to shape the future of the CHP.
And strangely enough, while people who have made sacrifices for the CHP for years are being sidelined, those who knocked on the CHP’s door just yesterday are being treated like royalty.
The roots of today’s crisis lie right here.
Because when a political movement begins to downplay its own history, views its past as a burden, and devalues its own members, it begins to disintegrate from within.
That is why what is happening today is no coincidence.
The situation that has emerged is the natural consequence of years of poor decisions.
The fact that these same circles are now talking about “unity” is a contradiction in itself.
Because we must first confront the causes of the division.
Unless those who sow the seeds of discord are identified and those who water them are held accountable, calls for unity are doomed to fall on deaf ears.
And the biggest question facing the CHP still remains unanswered:
Will the party remain the party of the organization?
Or will it turn into a political structure controlled by municipal power centers?
WHY WAS KEMAL KILIÇDAROĞLU A TARGET?
Is the Problem a Person or an Obstacle?
In politics, attacks on a person are not always due to that person’s mistakes.
The real reason is that this person is the final obstacle standing in the way of certain plans.
We need to look at the debates surrounding Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu from this perspective as well.
Because the person at the center of the current conflict within the CHP is actually Kılıçdaroğlu.
He is the one who is blamed for almost every problem that arises.
If the election is lost, he is to blame.
If the organization has disbanded, he is to blame.
If the party is divided, he is to blame.
Yet those who served as deputy chairpersons, deputy group leaders, members of the Central Executive Committee, mayors, and members of parliament during that same period—as well as those who lead the party today—are acting as if they were never part of that era.
That’s where the real contradiction begins.
Since everything was so bad…
Since everything was wrong…
Since Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu was the source of all the CHP’s problems throughout its history…
So what were the people currently in the party leadership doing at that time?
Why weren’t they objecting?
Why were they accepting the assignment?
Why were they running for office?
Why were their political careers on the rise at that time?
The truth is that a significant portion of the criticism directed at Kılıçdaroğlu today is seen as part of a political showdown.
Because Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu is not just a former party leader.
He is also one of the last major political figures to embody the CHP’s institutional memory.
That is precisely why they are being targeted.
Because when institutional memory is strong, personal spheres of influence shrink.
When party discipline is strong, factions weaken.
When the organization is strong, the scope of action for power centers shrinks.
For this reason, attacks on Kılıçdaroğlu are often not directed solely at one person.
In fact, the target is the CHP’s traditional checks and balances.
Indeed, this is exactly what we have seen in recent years.
Those who defend the party's founding principles have been declared obsolete.
Those who preserve the party's history were portrayed as obstacles.
Those who defended party discipline were targeted for expulsion.
Instead, personal loyalty was prioritized over principled commitment.
Unquestioning loyalty has replaced criticism.
Applause has replaced accounting.
The questioning was made to look like a betrayal.
In fact, the CHP’s historical strength stems from the exact opposite.
What makes the CHP the CHP is not a lack of diversity.
What makes the CHP the CHP is its diversity of thought.
What makes the CHP the CHP is its critical-thinking members.
You don’t have to be involved in every aspect of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s political career.
You don’t have to agree with all of their decisions.
However, we must acknowledge one fact:
Many figures who today present themselves as the natural leaders of the CHP found their opportunity to rise in the political arena during Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s tenure.
That is why today’s debate is not merely a debate among leaders.
This is also a debate over the distinction between political loyalty and political opportunism.
And CHP members will eventually have to face this question:
Is Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu really the one we need to hold accountable?
Or is it a mindset that seeks to upend all the party’s traditional balances by ousting him?
Who Divided the CHP? Who Sowed the Seeds of Discord, and Who Watered Them?
History sometimes writes a bitter irony.
Those who fueled division yesterday are now preaching unity.
Those who split the organization yesterday speak on its behalf today.
Those who yesterday viewed every dissent within the party as hostility are now preaching democracy.
This is the most tragic aspect of the crisis the CHP is facing today.
Those who have turned the party into a stage for their personal power struggles over the years are now trying to shift the blame for the current situation onto others.
But the truth is stubborn.
Facts cannot be changed by propaganda.
Slogans don’t make the facts go away.
The climate of polarization into which the CHP has been drawn did not emerge overnight.
It was the result of years of factional politics.
It emerged from an approach that prioritized expanding centers of power over building an organization.
It emerged from an approach that links party identity to individuals' political career plans.
It was formed through choices that prioritized the power of the municipality over that of the political party.
At this point, however, the fact that the same figures are stepping forward to call for unity raises questions about their sincerity.
Because unity begins with abandoning the language that divides us.
Unity begins with not treating those within the party who hold different views as enemies.
Unity begins by not subjecting the organization to a loyalty test.
Unity begins with acknowledging that the CHP does not belong to any group, any clique, or any municipal circle.
It is precisely at this point that Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s political stance regains its significance.
Because he is the one who has remained in the party despite all the attacks.
Despite all the accusations, he is the one who has not sought another political home.
It is he who emphasizes the CHP’s institutional existence despite all the pressure.
Amid all the arguments, he is the one who still talks about “the family home.”.
This is where the crux of the matter lies.
Is the CHP a platform for political careers?
Or is it the century-long legacy of the Republic’s founding party?
If the CHP comes in second, then what we need to do is not become a fanatic for one of the sides.
What needs to be done is to confront the mindset that brought the party to this point.
Because no political movement can grow by undermining its own organization.
No political party can grow stronger by erasing its own history.
No leader can make history by splitting their own party in two.
What the CHP needs today is not new heroes.
Nor are they new slogans.
New enemies are nothing at all.
What the CHP needs is to return to its principles.
It means returning to the organization.
It means returning to party discipline.
It is a return to the idea of the Republic.
And above all, what the CHP needs is to rid itself of those who mistake discord for politics.
Because the architects of division may well be preaching unity today.
But history is written not by speeches, but by results.
And at the end of the day, everyone will have to answer this question:
Who really split the CHP?
Who sowed the seeds of discord?
And who watered those seeds for years?