There are certain periods in Turkish politics when it is not so much the events themselves but the reactions to them that reveal the true nature of the era.
The Saraçhane process was exactly such a turning point.
Because in Saraçhane, we didn’t just see support for a mayor.
At the same time, we have witnessed the political transformation undergone by certain circles that have for years described themselves as socialist, revolutionary, pro-public sector, pro-labor, and pro-people.
A significant portion of those who once claimed to stand against the state, capital, and political power have suddenly become the most ardent defenders of a new political center centered on the municipality.
What’s more, they didn’t do this on behalf of the CHP either.
It is important to make a clear distinction here.
No one has any issue with the CHP’s historical legacy, its role in the founding of the Republic, or its century-long political history.
The issue being discussed today is not the CHP.
The topic of discussion today is the new political center that has emerged around Ekrem İmamoğlu and Özgür Özel.
And these are the new zones of immunity that have formed around this center.
For years, the same story was told to the Turkish left:
“Give me a little more support.”
“Be a little more visible.”
“Please be patient a little longer.”
“This team will shift the CHP to the left.”
“This team will expand the scope of freedom.”
“This team will further advance democratization.”
And what was the result?
Let’s take a look back today.
Is the working class better organized?
Is the labor movement stronger?
Is public ownership more effective?
Is the socialist movement more widespread?
Is the fight against poverty becoming more visible?
No, no, no.
None of that happened.
Instead, other things happened.
Political power centers based in municipalities have grown.
New political careers have emerged.
New loyalty networks have emerged.
New areas of immunity have been established.
And while all this was happening, certain circles that identify as socialist lost their critical distance.
This is precisely the point.
Because the role of the left is not to serve as a reserve force for the political establishment.
The Left's role is not to protect the party headquarters.
The left's role is not to defend the mayor.
The left’s role is not to take sides in internal party factional struggles.
However, the picture that has emerged in recent years is exactly the opposite.
Today, people can’t help but ask the following questions:
Since when has blindly defending the CHP headquarters become a leftist stance?
Since when has taking a political stance at Güvenpark in response to calls for parallel holiday celebrations become revolutionary?
Since when has being part of the convention’s inner circle become a labor struggle?
Since when has it become a reflex for socialists to defend politicians facing serious allegations without even hearing their side of the story?
How can we explain the fact that those who, until just yesterday, were demanding that every allegation against the government be “investigated,” that those responsible be “held accountable,” and that “transparency be ensured,” are now getting angry when faced with the very same demands?
Because the history of the left is not a history of defending those in power, but of questioning them.
That is precisely why the developments stretching from Saraçhane to Güvenpark are not merely a power struggle within the CHP.
This process is also the story of how a significant segment of the Turkish left lost its independent political identity.
And perhaps the first question that needs to be answered today is this:
Has the CHP really shifted to the left?
Or has a segment of the left fallen in line behind İmamoğlu and Özel’s CHP?
“ARININ’S” CALL: WHO DID IT UPSET, AND WHY?
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this debate is that the very circles that have been talking for years about ethics, transparency, accountability, and the public conscience in politics take a completely different stance when the issue concerns their own political circles.
Because if one pays attention to the calls Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu has made recently, there is actually no ideological debate at all.
The issue at hand is a very simple request.
Let the party begin.
The allegations should be investigated.
Let the allegations be clarified.
If there is corruption, those responsible must be held accountable.
If the party is clean, there is no need to fear this.
Under normal circumstances, each of these statements is something that social democrats, socialists, and revolutionaries alike should applaud.
Because, throughout history, the left has sought to establish checks and balances against power.
It is based on inquiry.
It is based on holding people accountable.
It is based on the protection of public resources.
So why, then, did these remarks provoke such outrage in some circles?
Because it wasn’t about the words that were spoken.
The issue was the address to which the words were directed.
It marked the first time in years that the new political establishment—long considered untouchable—began to be seriously questioned.
That’s where the turning point emerged.
Those who once demanded accountability from those in power have now begun telling their own political circles to “shut up” when faced with questions directed at them.
Those who once said, “Let it be investigated,” have now started saying, “Let’s not talk about it.”.
Those who once called for “transparency” have now started saying, “Don’t ask questions.”.
And the most striking aspect of this transformation is that a significant portion of it is taking place within circles that identify as left-wing.
Because principles are no longer being upheld here.
The party is being defended.
Public ownership is no longer defended here.
Political affiliation is being defended.
Accountability is no longer being defended here.
Political loyalty is being defended.
In fact, socialism has never been a belief system built around individuals.
The leftist movement was not a movement based on loyalty to leaders.
Being a leftist has never been a guarantee of a political career.
On the contrary, it was the courage to hold people accountable regardless of who held the power.
Today, however, we are faced with an interesting situation.
A significant portion of those angered by Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s call for “cleansing” consists of people who have long argued that Turkish politics needs to be cleaned up.
Therefore, there is a serious question that needs to be addressed:
Since when has it become a crime to demand an investigation into allegations of corruption within a political party?
Since when has calling for the purging of a political party been considered divisive?
Since when has demanding accountability from a political entity come to be seen as anti-democratic?
Because if a political movement fears an investigation into allegations within its own ranks, the problem lies not in the demand for an investigation, but in the mere possibility that such an investigation might take place.
And perhaps this is the reality that a segment of the Turkish left is unwilling to face today.
The problem isn’t what Kılıçdaroğlu said.
The problem is that the new political center, which has been established over the years in the name of change, is now beginning to be questioned.
That is why this is not a personal dispute.
This debate is about choosing between principle and loyalty.
And it seems that certain circles have already made their choice.
Those Who Remain Silent About Can Atalay: Why Did They Fill the Squares for Some Politicians?
The sincerity of a political movement is best judged by whether it can uphold its principles even in difficult times.
Because principles are not mere adornments for easy times, but a compass for difficult times.
This very question lies at the heart of the debates currently taking place in Turkey.
Is it really the law that is being defended?
Is democracy really what is being defended?
Is it really the will of the people that is being defended?
Or are these concepts remembered solely based on political affiliations?
One of the most significant examples that led us to ask this question is the case of Can Atalay.
Given that this individual is an elected member of parliament yet is being held in prison, a significant portion of the Turkish left naturally reacted.
However, when we look back today, we see that the same circles are mobilizing with far greater energy, far greater organization, and far greater political motivation in support of other candidates.
This is where a serious inconsistency comes to light.
Those who have not shown the same resolve for Can Atalay…
Those who didn’t fill the squares for days on end for Can Atalay…
Those who have failed to generate a nationwide political mobilization for Can Atalay…
When it comes to certain mayors and certain political figures, they suddenly become the “vanguards of the struggle for democracy.”.
One can't help but ask:
Why?
Why is the same energy not being expended for the freedom of a member of Congress, yet it is being expended for others?
Why is it that unity cannot be achieved on a legal issue, yet it can be achieved when political affiliation is at stake?
Why does a reflex that isn’t shown toward an elected representative suddenly emerge when certain political circles are involved?
Because here, the difference between principle and loyalty becomes apparent.
If it’s a matter of the law, the law must apply to everyone.
If the issue is democracy, then democracy must be for everyone.
If the issue is respect for the will of the people, then everyone must be treated with respect.
But the reality is quite the opposite.
For some names, the rule applies.
For some names, political affiliation comes into play.
For some people, democracy comes to mind.
For some names, silence is preferred.
That is precisely why many people are asking the same question today:
Is what is being defended really democracy?
Or is it the interests of a particular political faction?
Because democracy cannot be applied selectively.
Justice cannot vary from person to person.
The law cannot be guided by political sympathies.
And being a leftist doesn’t mean staying silent when it comes to politicians you like, and shouting when it comes to those you don’t.
Unfortunately, this is the picture that has emerged in recent years.
For some circles, the primary criterion is no longer principle, but political affiliation.
The primary consideration is not the public interest, but political position.
The key factor is not labor, but taking a side.
That is why the process that began in Saraçhane is not merely the story of a single mayor or a political team.
This process also tells the story of how a segment of the Turkish left shifted from a politics of principle to a politics of identity.
And perhaps this is the most significant political loss.
Because the day a movement loses its principles, it begins to lose not its power, but its legitimacy.
FROM SWALLOW FLAGS TO CITY HALL CORRIDORS
The past two years for the Turkish left can perhaps be summed up in a single sentence:
Those who tried to transform the CHP ended up transforming themselves.
The same argument has been repeated for years.
“We’re going to pull the CHP to the left.”
“We will make the CHP more democratic.”
“We will be stronger within the CHP.”
“Let’s get a little closer, offer a little more support, and make ourselves a little more visible.”
However, looking at the current situation, it is clear that this strategy has failed.
Because in political relations, there is always a balance of power between the agent of change and the one being changed.
If you lack your own independent organizational strength, your own political line, and your own social clout, you will begin to dissolve within the very structure you are trying to transform.
A significant portion of the Turkish left experienced exactly that.
Those who once fought against privatization in the streets are now unable to criticize municipal administrations.
Those who once questioned capital relations now don’t even want allegations regarding municipal funds to be investigated.
Those who once criticized party bureaucracies are now acting as their voluntary defenders.
Those who once kept their distance from the establishment parties are now becoming active participants in internal factional struggles within the establishment.
This is where the real collapse is taking place.
Because the socialist movement is not the youth wing of a political party.
It is not a mayor's support group.
It is not a political shield for a party leader.
It is not the field organization of a convention team.
But this is exactly the picture that has emerged in recent years.
Some segments of the left are now acting in accordance with the agenda of power struggles within the CHP rather than setting their own agenda.
The workers are going on strike; silence.
Labor rights are being eroded, yet there is silence.
Public resources are being privatized, yet there is silence.
Retirees are falling into poverty, yet there is silence.
But whenever a factional struggle breaks out within the CHP, all that energy is suddenly unleashed.
All social media platforms are getting involved.
All political reflexes are kicking in.
This chart speaks volumes on its own.
Because there is no longer a labor-centered politics here.
There is no longer a class-based politics here.
There is no longer an independent left-wing political movement here.
Here, there are bonds of loyalty centered around a political hub.
And over time, these bonds of loyalty have come to replace ideology.
That’s why the question on many people’s minds today is the same:
Has the CHP really shifted to the left?
Or has a segment of the left fallen under the influence of the CHP, and specifically the İmamoğlu–Özel faction?
The picture that emerges shows that the second option is much stronger.
Because when we look back today, we see not that the CHP has shifted to the left, but that a significant portion of the left has become the defender of the new power centers within the CHP.
The swallow flags have been moved to the municipal hallways.
Class politics has given way to political affiliations.
Principle-based politics has given way to team-based politics.
And perhaps the saddest part is that all of this is still being defended under the guise of “leftism.”.
Yet the day a political movement loses its independent course, it begins to lose not only its power but also its very reason for existence.
That is exactly what the crisis we are facing today is all about.
And this crisis is a crisis of the Turkish left, even before it is a crisis of the CHP.
FROM SARAÇHANE TO GÜVENPARK — THE LEFT’S SELF-CRITICISM AND A NEW ORDER OF LOYALTY
At the end of every political era, what remains is not slogans, but a balance sheet.
That is exactly what needs to be done today.
After all the turmoil surrounding Saraçhane, Güvenpark, the convention brawls, the headquarters disputes, the social media campaigns, and the never-ending political factionalism, it’s time to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
Because the narrative that has been told to a significant segment of the Turkish left for years is now laid bare before us, along with its consequences.
And those results don't look very promising.
At one point, a segment of the Turkish left assigned itself the following role:
“We will be the agents of change.”
“We will shift the CHP to the left.”
“We will create a new political climate.”
“We will be the driving force behind democratization.”
Two years passed.
So what was the result?
A stronger labor movement?
A more organized working class?
A stronger commitment to the public sector?
A more effective socialist movement?
Greater social opposition?
No, no, no.
In contrast, other, far more visible consequences emerged.
New political careers have emerged.
New municipal-level power networks have emerged.
A new political elite has emerged.
New loyalty relationships have been established.
And while all this was happening, a significant portion of the left lost its independent political line.
Because in politics, the most dangerous thing isn’t that the other side defeats you.
The most dangerous thing is forgetting your very reason for being.
This is exactly what is happening today.
Those who once set out to question power have come to defend it.
Those who once entered politics to hold others accountable have now become angry when they themselves are held accountable.
Those who once criticized party bureaucracies have become the defenders of new bureaucracies.
Those who once claimed to be committed to principles rather than individuals have now begun to interpret those principles based on individuals.
That is why this is not merely a power struggle within the CHP.
The issue is much deeper.
The issue is that a segment of the Turkish left has shifted its politics from being principle-centered to being identity-centered.
Because when we look at the debates taking place today, we see an interesting situation.
Defending the CHP headquarters is considered a leftist act.
Taking a political stance at Güvenpark is considered a sign of being left-wing.
Being part of the party convention is considered a sign of being a leftist.
Exempting certain political figures from criticism is considered a leftist stance.
But holding the government accountable for public funds is considered divisive.
Asking for an investigation into the allegations is considered treason.
Calling for the party to be purged is considered a crime.
This is precisely where a major mental shift occurs.
Because the left has never been a culture of political loyalty.
The left has never been about protecting leaders.
The left has never been about municipal advocacy.
The left has never been about guarding the party headquarters.
On the contrary, it was the courage to distance himself from all of them.
That is why we need to ask ourselves this question today:
Why was the reflex not shown for Can Atalay, yet was shown for certain political figures?
If solidarity couldn’t be established for workers, why was it possible to establish it for some municipal officials?
Why did the masses, who were unable to organize on behalf of the poor, suddenly spring into action when it came to political allegiances?
The answers to these questions may be unsettling.
But political accountability is, after all, the courage to ask uncomfortable questions.
Perhaps this is the greatest challenge facing the Turkish left today.
Not the CHP…
Not Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu…
First, question yourself.
Because it’s not about the people.
The question is when those principles were abandoned.
The question is at what point political loyalty takes precedence over the public interest.
The issue is at what point the culture of accountability gives way to a reflex to protect the team.
And the issue is at what point people who claim to be pursuing an independent political agenda end up becoming voluntary advocates for another political camp.
That is the gist of the story that stretches from Saraçhane to Güvenpark.
What is being told is not a story of victory.
It is not a story of liberation.
It is not a story of democratization.
The story here is about how certain circles, who believed they could transform the CHP, ended up being transformed themselves over time.
And perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from this story is this:
No political movement can grow in the shadow of another political center.
No left-wing movement can grow stronger by prioritizing political loyalty over principle.
No social struggle can achieve liberation by giving up the right to hold people accountable.
Because the true history of the left is not the history of those who stand with the powerful, but the history of those who keep asking questions, no matter who the powerful may be.