A striking contradiction has recently become increasingly visible in the opposition debates in Turkey. The debates, especially around the CHP, have turned from a mere leadership issue into a question of political belonging and coherence.
One of the most striking aspects of this contradiction is that while former CHP chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu is often accused of “serving the palace” or “working for the government” by media outlets close to the current party leadership, the respect and “mentor” role that the same circles attribute to names like Bülent Arınç is quite meaningful.
The fact that a figure who was one of the key actors in the harsh political polarization in the past and who was a founding member of the Justice and Development Party is now presented as a “conciliator”, “wise” or “balancing” figure in some opposition circles creates a serious confusion of meaning among the opposition base.
The emerging picture almost gives rise to the following perception: Some circles that distance themselves from their own party's past and its leader have reached a point where they would not object if a former AK Party leader was given a CHP badge, and would even welcome it. This situation weakens the sense of belonging within the party.
For the grassroots, the picture that emerges is quite striking: On the one hand, the former chairman of his own party is being targeted, while on the other, figures from the political rival front are being called “wise”, “mentors” or “conciliators”. This is not just a difference in tactics; it also creates a sense of ideological and emotional inconsistency.
Looking at this picture, one inevitably asks the following question: Can a political mentality that almost declares Bülent Arınç to be a saint, while targeting its own former chairman, really be in power?
Moreover, the political line and ideas Arınç defends are already part of the ruling bloc today. So there is nothing new under the sun. The politics that Arınç represents continues to influence the state administration. In such a situation, the opposition's targeting its own past and presenting the actors of the rival political tradition as “wise” or “mentors” naturally raises the following question at the grassroots level: If the proposed politics already exists within the government, what exactly is the opposition's claim?
Politics is not only about strategy, but also about a sense of belonging and trust. The fact that the grassroots sees its own leader as a target, while tolerating figures from rival political traditions, calls into question the party's ideological coherence.
After all, politics has to produce a belief and motivation that resonates with society. Just as the saying “a mill does not turn with carrying water” expresses a truth, it is once again evident that it is not possible to motivate the masses with carrying politics. The strength of a movement does not come from borrowed figures, but from its own internal coherence and the relationship of trust with its base.