To read today's debates within the Republican People's Party as merely a “change of leader” or a “renewal of cadres” would be to oversimplify the issue. Because what is happening is a much deeper rupture than a change of leadership. This rupture is directly related to the loosening and even dissolution of a party's relationship with its historical identity.
The CHP is not only a party in Turkish politics, but also the carrier of a line, a claim and a political tradition. For many years, this tradition defined itself within a leftist, social democratic, publicist and secular framework. This definition was not just an ideological label; it was also a sense of direction. Where a party looked, what it stood for, which social segments it leaned on - all these were determined by this framework.
Today we are going through a period in which this framework is blurred. The concept of “change” is a powerful slogan, but the content of this slogan is not clear. This is precisely why, no matter how loudly the claim of change is voiced, the question becomes inevitable: What does this change change?
If there is to be a change, it must first be visible at the ideological level. Is there a shift in economic policy? Has the emphasis on labor strengthened? Has social democracy been redefined? Has publicism been adapted to current conditions? If there are no clear and strong answers to any of these questions, there is not a transformation, but only a displacement.
This is exactly the picture on the ground today: not a strong ideological reconstruction, but a search for a clear direction. There is no clear political line. There is no coherent discourse. There is no coherent ideological framework. This turns politics into a collection of reactions rather than a program.
It is precisely at this point that the concept of “loss of trajectory” gains meaning. Because when a political movement loses its direction, it becomes unclear what it stands for as well as what it does not stand for. This uncertainty may seem like flexibility in the short term, but in the long term it leads to identity erosion.
One of the most striking indicators of this process is the re-centering of the names who in the past had directed the harshest criticism at the party. When Emine Ülker Tarhan and Muharrem İnce left the CHP, they did not merely express a difference of political preference; they developed a direct rejection. They questioned the party leadership, the ideological line and its representative capacity.
These criticisms were not ordinary. Expressions such as “de-identification”, “break with Atatürk's line”, “distancing from the organization”, “loss of claim to power” target not only a party's policies but also its raison d'être. Such criticisms are either true or not. But in either case, it must produce results.
Today, those promises are there, but there is no accountability for those promises.
What is even more striking is that there is no sharp rupture between the structure of the period when these criticisms were leveled and the structure of today. The same political culture, the same cadres, the same reflexes continue to a large extent. The picture that emerges in this situation is this: While the ground criticized has not disappeared, the critics are returning.
This contradiction is not just an individual inconsistency; it is a sign of a larger problem.
Today, a significant part of the debate is centered on Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. However, putting all the burden on a single name is to analyze politics by personalizing it. However, politics is read through structures rather than personalities. In an environment where the same cadres continue to exist and the same language continues to a large extent, placing all the responsibility on a single figure does not explain the reality - it obscures it.
So the first and most fundamental question remains:
Is this change really ideological, or is it only a cadre change?
If there is no clear answer to this question, there is not change, there is uncertainty. And politics cannot survive on uncertainty for long.
Because the voter will eventually ask:
“What does this party stand for?”
If the answer to this question is blurred, there is a crisis.
Today's process in the CHP may not be a renewal.
This could be the beginning of a much deeper process:
Ideological disorientation.
And if this is true, it is no longer just a CHP issue.
This is a question of the future of the left and social democracy in Turkey.
THE WEIGHT OF THE WORD: WHAT DOES POLITICS BECOME WHEN COHERENCE COLLAPSES?
Politics stands on a very simple foundation:
A promise and the will to stand by that promise.
The value of a politician is measured not only by what he says, but also by how much he can carry what he says. Because politics is not only about taking a position, it is also about bearing the cost of that position. If there is no price, words have no value.
This is at the heart of the debates around the CHP today:
The rupture between word and deed.
This rupture is not an ordinary contradiction; it is a rupture that directly erodes political trust.
WHERE DOES THE LIMIT OF SPEECH END?
Muharrem Ince and
Emine Ülker Tarhan
When they left the CHP, they did not only choose a different path. At the same time, they built an extremely harsh, sharp and systematic discourse to legitimize that path.
These discourses went far beyond the limits of classical “internal party criticism”.
- Party leadership targeted
- Political direction questioned
- The ideological ground was opened to discussion
And some statements, in particular, turned into language that directly questioned the legitimacy of a party.
At this point, the issue is no longer a difference of opinion.
It means “this structure is wrong”.
FROM CRITICISM TO REJECTION
Emine Ülker Tarhan's line was even clearer.
He did not just criticize-he rejected.
CHP:
- That he moved away from Atatürk's line
- that you've become anonymous
- that he has lost his principled stance
defended.
This kind of discourse makes it difficult to turn back. Because this is not a criticism of “an improvable structure”; it is a claim that “it is unacceptable as it is”.
And this claim was taken one step further:
A new party was formed.
So criticism has turned into an alternative argument.
THE POLLS THE LAST REFEREE OF POLITICS
But politics is measured by results, not just words.
The fact that the established alternatives did not find a strong response in the society showed this:
Society did not find this rupture convincing.
At this point, two possibilities arise:
- Either the criticisms were right but society did not respond
- Or the criticism was already weak
In both cases, the result is the same:
The claim was not sustainable.
BACK THE MOST DIFFICULT QUESTION
And now we come to the main issue.
Today, the same names are again on the same political ground.
At this point politics can no longer run away.
Because the questions remain:
- Was what you said yesterday wrong?
- If it was wrong, why was he so harsh?
- If so, why are you here today?
There is only one answer to these questions:
What has changed?
SILENCE HEAVIEST ANSWER
There is no clear answer to these questions.
There is no self-criticism,
nor an ideological redefinition,
nor a confrontation.
What emerges at this point is not just emptiness.
This is directly this:
Political silence
But in politics, silence is not neutral.
Silence often means:
Failure to respond.
THE BEGINNINGS OF PRAGMATISM
In politics, a comeback is possible.
But this return has to mean something.
If you do:
- no explanation
- no justification
- no consistency
that return is not principled; it is pragmatic.
So what is decisive now is this:
Need
Principle is pushed to the background, conjuncture comes to the fore.
THE QUESTION: HOW DID THIS BECOME NORMALIZED?
It is not only the returnees who should be questioned, but also the structure that accepts them.
These choices by Özgür Özel redefine the boundaries of politics.
Because this normalizes this:
- The harshest words can be said
- The hardest ruptures are possible
- Then you can go back as if nothing had happened
At this point, politics ceases to be a field of principle.
It becomes a field of maneuver.
INFLATION IN POLITICS: THE PROMISE BECOMES WORTHLESS
In the economy, inflation reduces the value of money.
In politics, inflation reduces the value of a promise.
This is exactly what is happening today:
- The most serious accusations are forgotten
- The hardest ruptures are becoming commonplace
- The biggest claims evaporate
And the result:
The word has no weight.
Let's clarify the picture that emerges:
- Promise
- But that promise has no price
- Criticism
- But that criticism is unaccountable
This has only one consequence:
Insecurity
And there is nothing more dangerous for politics.
FROM IDEOLOGY TO IDENTITY: THE PIVOTAL SHIFT IN POLITICS
It is not only the actors that determine the quality of politics;
what is decisive is that politics on what grounds it is built.
This is the most critical break in the new style of politics shaped around the CHP today:
While the ideological ground is weakening, the politics of identity and emotion is gaining strength.
This is not a coincidence.
This is the direct result of a change of direction.
LEFT AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY: THE VACANT CENTER
The left and social democracy are not historically a “politics of emotion”.
On the contrary, it is based on a very concrete ground:
- class relations
- labor-capital balance
- distribution of public resources
- equal citizenship
This politics does not ignore identities, but it does not put them at the center either.
Because what is at the center is not identity, equality.
Today, it is clear that this center has shifted.
- identity instead of class
- symbol instead of economy
- discourse instead of politics
This change is not a technical communication choice;
is an ideological pivot.
WHY IS IDENTITY POLITICS ATTRACTIVE?
Because identity politics is easy.
- Does not require deep analysis
- Generates rapid emotional response
- Easy to mobilize
But it is also risky.
Because identity politics, rather than uniting has the potential to divide.
THE MOST SENSITIVE AREA: BELIEF
The most dangerous point of this process is this:
Direct involvement of beliefs in politics
A picture that is becoming increasingly visible today:
- Values of the Alevi community
- The cultural and emotional world of Kurdish society
- religious and cultural symbols
becoming an active part of political communication.
Visibility is not the problem here.
The problem lies in this question:
Is it a representation or a use?
TIMING GIVES EVERYTHING AWAY
In politics, intentions are often read not in rhetoric but in timing.
Voters are now more conscious and are asking these questions:
- Why have these sensitivities emerged now?
- Why wasn't it so visible before?
- Is this a principled transformation or an electoral move?
What emerges when these questions remain unanswered is this:
Crisis of sincerity
NEW STYLE OF POLITICS: PLEASING EVERYONE
Today in particular
Ekrem Imamoglu and
The style of politics centered around Özgür Özel,
describes itself as “inclusive”.
But there is a critical distinction here:
- Inclusion → requires a principled framework
- Pragmatism → requires flexibility and adaptability
If you do:
- If different language is used for each segment
- If there is no clear ideological framework
- If consistency is pushed to the background
there begins this:
Not political flexibility, but political slipperiness
THE POST-NATIONALIST VACUUM
Another important transformation:
“The weakening of the ”nationalist" line.
The vacuum created by the weakening of this line naturally leads to new searches:
- New voter groups
- New foci of identity
- New forms of discourse
This process is not a problem in itself.
But at this point the break begins:
If this orientation is not principled, it becomes instrumentalized.
POLITICIZATION OF THE SACRED
This is the most dangerous threshold of politics:
The sacred becomes a tool
Because at this point:
- Belief → becomes a propaganda tool
- Identity → reduced to vote mobilization
- Value → becomes campaign material
And the long-term consequence of this situation:
It is the erosion of social trust.
VOTERS READ THE TRUTH
Today, voters are reading more clearly:
- Sensitivities that did not exist yesterday exist today
- Methods criticized yesterday are being used today
- Principles defended yesterday are being stretched today
And he concludes:
“This is not representation, this is strategy.”
Today the issue is this:
Does politics bring society together on a common ground?,
or does it reduce society to manageable identities?
If the latter:
It is not just a choice,
is a long-term political rupture.
THE REAL TEST OF CHANGE: POWER OR DEMOCRACY?
In politics, “change” is the easiest claim to make and the hardest to prove.
Because change is not just about rhetoric; how power relations are reconstituted understandable.
The picture that emerged in the CHP after the congress is precisely a litmus paper in this respect.
This is where the distance between discourse and practice is measured.
DISCOURSE DEMOCRACY
PRACTICAL CENTRALIZATION?
The “change” discourse put forward under the leadership of Özgür Özel rested on three main claims:
- a more democratic party
- a more participatory structure
- more transparent governance
These allegations were presented as a response to the CHP's long-criticized structure.
But politics is not about rhetoric, measured by practice.
At this point, the following questions are inevitable:
- Have decision-making processes really expanded?
- Has the space for internal party debate been opened?
- Can different views be kept within the system?
If the answer to these questions is not clear,
“The discourse of ”change" remains a claim.
ASSEMBLY: RENEWAL OR REDISTRIBUTION?
Congresses do not only change leaders.
Conventions change the balance of power.
The structure that emerges today:
- new cadres
- new alliances
- new centers
on which it is based.
But here is the critical distinction:
Is this a democratic expansion or a consolidation of power?
If power is concentrated in a narrower area,
there is no change, there is only repositioning There are.
A TRUE TEST OF INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY
There is only one way to know whether a party is democratic or not:
How he responds to criticism
If you do:
- critics are ostracized
- different voices are marginalized
- if internal party opposition is being narrowed
there begins this:
Control, not democracy
THE ISSUE OF EXPULSION AND EXCLUSION
The expulsion mechanism is sometimes necessary in politics.
But when used frequently and controversially, it ceases to be a means of defense;
becomes a tool of repression, not discipline.
It is precisely in this respect that the debates on expulsion and exclusion, which come up from time to time within the CHP today, are important.
Because these debates raise the question:
“Is it still possible to think differently?”
A PICTURE AT ODDS WITH THE RETURNS
At this point, an even more striking contradiction emerges:
On the one hand:
- a perception that those who criticize are excluded
On the other side:
- re-inclusion of the names who have been the harshest critics in the past
Muharrem Ince and
The example of Emine Ülker Tarhan is critical in this respect.
This picture raises the question:
What is a border? Who is inside, who is outside and why?
THE BIGGEST CONTRADICTION
The picture that emerged today can be summarized most clearly as follows:
- Discourse → pluralism
- Practice → centralization
- Discourse → democracy
- Practical → control
This contradiction is not only an internal party problem.
This also raises the question:
How will this structure govern if it comes to power?
CHP'S HISTORICAL CYCLE ACCELERATES
CHP history:
- Separations
- ruptures
- new parties
- Returns
always has been.
But the difference today is this:
This cycle accelerated and normalized.
Everything that becomes normalized becomes unquestioned.
Unquestioned politics over time it's empty.
WHAT DOES THE GRASSROOTS SEE?
Today, the party base and the voters see this:
- those criticized yesterday are inside today
- what was defended yesterday is yawning today
- what was called “wrong” yesterday is being practiced today
And he concludes:
“It's not a change, it's a relocation.”
The process happening in the CHP today:
- is not just a change of leader
- it is not just a staff renewal
This one:
is a search for direction and a redistribution of power
But the only question that will determine the fate of this process is this:
Is this change principled or cyclical?
A TIME FOR CALCULATION, NOT MEMORY: THE LAST TEST OF POLITICS
Throughout this article we have moved along the same axis:
word, position, turn and the political meaning they create.
It is now possible to see the whole picture.
This debate is not just a party debate, nor is it limited to the return of a few names.
This debate directly concerns the following:
Is politics still based on principle or only on position?
WHAT THE PARTS HAVE IN COMMON
Let's simplify the picture:
On one side:
- Muharrem Ince
→ harsh rhetoric
→ rupture
→ search for alternatives
→ failure
→ return back - Emine Ülker Tarhan
→ ideological criticisms
→ party building
→ not finding a response
→ retreat
→ readmission
On the other side:
- Ozgur Ozel
→ discourse of change
→ new lineup
→ search for direction - Ekrem Imamoglu
→ the claim of inclusiveness
→ orientation towards different identities
→ ideological uncertainty
And in the background:
- identity politics
- the instrumentalization of beliefs debate
- intra-party tension
- discomfort in the organization
- erosion of trust
CURRENT PHOTO MORE THAN A COMEBACK
Recent developments have concretized this debate:
- Emine Ülker Tarhan rejoined CHP
- Özgür Özel pinned his badge
- Muharrem İnce had already returned earlier
This is not just a participation.
This is a is a political message.
But like any message, it raises a question:
What has changed?
THE DEPTH OF THE CONTRADICTION
Even more striking is this:
- The names Tarhan criticized when he left are still in the party
- The political structure criticized has not changed completely
- The same cadres continue to exist with different positions
In this case, the return, when unexplained, means the following:
Suspension of coherence
GRASSROOTS QUESTION: WHERE WERE YOU IN DIFFICULT TIMES?
Politics is not just a game between leaders.
The base carries the memory.
And the grassroots asks the question:
“Where were you in difficult times?”
Because politics is not a choice made at leisure;
is a position taken at a difficult time.
If a politician:
- leaving in a crisis
- trying his own way
- if he comes back when he fails.
This inevitably leads to the following discussion:
Is it a stance or a positioning?
NEW MODEL UNACCOUNTABLE POLITICS
The model that emerged today is now clear:
- Talk tough
- Big bet is the courtship
- Kop
- Try alternative
- Fail
- Go back
- Accountability
The name of this model is clear:
Politics without calculation
And as this model becomes more widespread, the nature of politics changes.
THE MOST DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCE: THE COLLAPSE OF TRUST
The only thing that keeps politics alive:
Trust
But the picture that emerged today:
- that the word has become worthless
- that criticism has lost its meaning
- that pragmatism has replaced principle
It shows.
And the result of that:
Cynicism
So society now says:
- “They're all the same”
- “Nothing changes”
- “They'll come back anyway”
At this point, politics does not produce representation.
It only breeds insecurity.
HISTORICAL THRESHOLD FOR CHP
The issue is clear for the CHP today:
This is not just an internal party debate.
This one:
is a matter of identity and direction
- Will the left stay?
- Will he be a social democrat?
- Or will it be a structure focused only on winning elections?
Any move made without answering this question will be temporary.
THE QUESTION WITH NO ESCAPE
Now let's ask the most obvious question:
- What does the structure you called “identity-less” yesterday represent today?
- Why is the politics you criticized so harshly yesterday acceptable today?
- How did what was wrong yesterday become right today?
If there are no answers to these questions:
there is no change.
The problem of this society is not memory.
This is society's problem:
is not being held to account.
Unless they are held to account:
- ruptures lose their meaning
- returns normalize
- politics becomes a position, not a principle
And at that point politics turns into this:
is not a battleground,
a game of displacement.
Real change is not a change of names.
Real change, is to be able to stand by your word.
If you don't have this:
What a change there is,
what principle,
nor politics.
All that remains is this:
Words spoken but not claimed
and positions taken but not announced.