A “guardianship system” is dangerous for all civil and political organizations. If you see that “the drum is around one person’s neck and the drumstick is in another’s hand,” it means something fishy is going on.
Those within the CHP whose plans to establish this system have fallen through are now trying to implement a “multi-headed party” model. Every kind of perception operation is being attempted to create the image of a “disorganized party” that transcends the boundaries of internal democracy, internal competition, and internal struggle. How else can one explain the fact that, upon the issuance of the annulment decision, he acknowledged that he was not the “General Chairman,” yet still attempted to hold a Central Executive Board (MYK) meeting with “vice chairs” who are effectively non-existent?
To dismiss this situation as an internal conflict within the CHP, or to frame it as a struggle between Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and Özgür Özel, is a deliberate attempt to obscure the issue. All opportunities presented for “Özgür’s Liberation” have been squandered. Explaining this situation as “refusing to turn one’s back on İmamoğlu” is nothing more than the proverbial “cat calling the liver it cannot reach rotten.” One cannot be free—and will never be free—without breaking free from the domination of money and power!
Just as showing solidarity with your fellow inmates is not—and cannot be—the same as being an accomplice to a crime.
Let’s turn to the topic of the parliamentary group and the group meeting.
The primary function of group leadership within political parties is to “ensure coordination” between the party headquarters and the parliamentary group, and to support members of parliament in developing a discourse consistent with the party’s central policies. Any exercise of power beyond this, or any attempt to establish a status or legal personality that transcends the party’s will, is futile. Just as the management of parties from municipalities gives rise to the tyranny of money, directing their administration from parliament creates the groundwork for the “disease of parliamentarism.” The primary guarantee of free policy-making can be secured by overcoming any form of municipal or parliamentary oversight that casts a shadow over the true will of the people. When political perspectives lose their significance in politics, two types of political styles remain. The first is a political style that acts with a sense of responsibility for one’s position and prioritizes societal expectations. The second is a style that prioritizes one’s own career planning over party interests—and even the nation’s welfare—and calculates every seat one occupies with an eye toward the next. This corruption poses the greatest risk to all sectors. There is no conservative, social democrat, nationalist, or Kurd in this matter. Within the Justice and Development Party, those acting with the ambition to shape the post-Erdoğan era are not shying away from engineering the opposition’s structure. In this matter, President Erdoğan’s neutrality—despite his title as “Party Chairman”—cannot be equated with Speaker Kurtulmuş’s “duty of neutrality”! The Speaker of Parliament must stand on the side of the law and act decisively in this regard. The opportunities provided by the Parliament’s Internal Regulations must not be exploited by being taken out of context. If this is an attempt to pave the way for similar situations to arise in other parties in the future, Erdoğan must not remain a bystander to this situation; he must intervene without delay. Attempting to shift the blame onto the judiciary, the Office of the President, or the state in this matter is also a clear case of diverting attention and misleading the public. It is like the story of “Red Monday,” which recounts a murder everyone knew was going to happen.
Creating an environment that fosters “Tuesday Group Meeting” syndrome is a historic responsibility and a moral burden.