Today's debates within the CHP have gone far beyond a simple cadre change. The real issue is the fading of the left and social democracy line that the party has historically represented and the erosion of ideological coherence under the name of “change”. While the rhetoric of change is on the rise, the picture that emerges in practice points to a serious search for direction, even a loss of trajectory.
The examples of Emine Ülker Tarhan and Muharrem İnce are particularly striking at this point. This is because both of these names had made extremely harsh and systematic criticisms against the party when they left the CHP. Tarhan argued that the CHP had “lost its identity”, moved away from the Kemalist line and lost its principled stance. Ince, on the other hand, criticized the party for its “monocentric structure”, “break with the organization” and “loss of its claim to power”, clearly stating that the party could not win elections with the current understanding.
Moreover, another critical contradiction emerges here: At the time when these criticisms were leveled, the party's leadership cadres were largely the same cadres that form the basis of today's structure. In other words, it is not easy to talk about an absolute rupture between the mentality criticized and the structure that today claims “change”. In this case, the question becomes inevitable: What has really changed? Has there only been a change at the leadership level, or has there been a radical transformation in the criticized political understanding?
At this point, the debates against Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu should also be discussed under a separate heading. Because it is often forgotten that many of the criticisms voiced today belong to a period in which the same cadres were involved in the past. If there is a failure or a problem, it is neither political reality nor a sense of justice to attribute all the responsibility for it to a single name. This approach both ignores institutional memory and personalizes and superficializes politics.
Today, the question remains as to where these harsh criticisms have been placed. If these criticisms are no longer valid, then the content and limits of this change should be made clear. If they are still valid, then what is the ideological basis for these political rapprochements? As long as these questions remain unanswered, the picture that emerges inevitably gives the appearance of unprincipled politics.
For the left and social democracy, the issue is not only about individuals; the real issue is the line itself. Coming side by side again today with a structure that was criticized yesterday for “de-identification” suggests either that the criticisms of the past were hollow or that today's politics has surrendered to an unprincipled pragmatism. Both possibilities pose a serious problem for the left and social democracy.
Moreover, the recent style of politics based on identities, beliefs and cultural values is in clear tension with the universal principles of the left and social democracy. This understanding of politics must move in a direction that brings together different segments of society on the basis of equal citizenship, not instrumentalizing them. Otherwise, what emerges is not a principle but a political maneuver shaped according to the conjuncture.
What is needed today is not moves that save the day, but a clear, consistent and pro-labor political line. If the rhetoric of “change” does not strengthen this line, it means that only names and positions are changing.
As a result, the issue is now very clear: Either the CHP will redefine its historical and ideological trajectory, or this unprincipled perception of politics will deepen and deepen the crisis of trust. And this crisis will eventually erode not only the cadres but also the values represented.