Kılıçdaroğlu accused the AK Party and the judiciary of a period marked by evasion of responsibility, a politics of victimhood, and a fear of internal party confrontation
In politics, there is a moral dimension to defeat, failure, and scandal alike.
Because politics is not just a struggle for power; it is also the art of taking responsibility.
When we look at the debates currently taking place within the CHP, however, a completely different picture emerges.
A political culture has been established in such a way that;
When there is success, the people behind it are clear.
If there's a failure, someone else is always to blame.
Are there allegations of corruption in local governments?
The culprit is Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.
Have there been allegations of impropriety surrounding the convention?
The culprit is Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.
Did people from within the party go to the prosecutor's office to give statements?
The AK Party is to blame.
Have any court files been created?
The Palace is to blame.
Has the decision been made?
The judiciary is to blame.
Well, let’s ask a question:
Isn't there anyone in charge at this party?
Has no one ever made a mistake?
Hasn't a single wrong decision ever been made?
Has there never been any conduct contrary to political ethics?
That’s right…
The complainant is a member of the CHP.
The person who provided the document is a member of the CHP.
A CHP member testifying.
The CHP member who objected.
A CHP member who says the convention is controversial.
But it’s everyone else’s fault…
This line of reasoning has moved beyond being merely a political defensive reflex; it has practically become an institutional mindset.
Because sometimes people don’t want to face the truth.
The truth hurts.
The truth demands answers.
It brings real responsibility.
That's why it's easier to come up with a slogan.
It’s easier to create enemies.
It’s easier to find someone to blame.
But political history has taught us one thing:
Those who constantly blame others will eventually be brought down by their own internal decay.
Rome was not destroyed by the barbarians.
It started to rot from the inside out.
It was not external enemies who brought down the Ottoman Empire.
First, the institutions collapsed.
Political parties are the same.
It is not a party’s rivals that bring it down, but its own failure to face its own realities.
This is precisely the fundamental problem the CHP faces today.
It’s a political reflex that, when a legal process is underway, instead of first asking, “Why did this process begin?” immediately jumps to the question, “Who’s setting us up?”.
Because the rhetoric of the operation is more comfortable than self-criticism.
It’s easier to tell a story of victimhood than to take responsibility.
And unfortunately, this is precisely the political rhetoric that has dominated the CHP leadership in recent years.
Always the victim.
Always in the crosshairs.
Under constant siege.
But for some reason, he’s never to blame.
That is precisely why the crisis we are facing today is not a legal crisis;
It is a crisis of mindset.
It is a crisis of accountability.
And most importantly…
It is a crisis of confrontation.
IF THERE'S NO CORRUPTION, WHY THE FEAR?
The Anatomy of Convention Debates
The most interesting thing about politics is this:
It is not so much what a person says, but how they react to things that reveals the truth.
When we look at the debates surrounding the party convention taking place within the CHP today, this is exactly what we see.
For months, the public was told the following:
“The convention is completely clean.”
“There is absolutely no suspicion.”
“All the claims are lies.”
So why all the anger, then?
Why all the panic?
Why all the aggression?
If a convention is truly above board, why would anyone be bothered by an investigation into it?
An honest person has nothing to fear from an investigation.
A clean organization has nothing to fear from an audit.
An honest politician isn’t afraid of scrutiny.
Because he knows that, in the end, it will be his own righteousness that prevails.
However, the picture we’ve seen recently is quite different.
The courts were targeted even before the case was resolved.
The judges were accused.
The prosecutors were accused.
Government agencies were accused.
In fact, even before the decision was issued, the decision itself was criticized.
This situation inevitably raises the following question:
Is it really the court that people are afraid of?
Or the truths that might come to light?
Caution.
These documents were not prepared by the AK Party.
The Palace did not make these claims.
These statements were not made by the judiciary.
On the contrary.
There are statements from CHP members at the outset of this process.
They have their own witnesses.
They have their own objections.
They have their own complaints.
So, actually, the debate taking place today isn’t between the CHP and the AK Party.
A reckoning the CHP has undertaken with its own conscience.
But attempts are being made to sweep this under the rug.
Because if certain truths come to light, the political narratives that have been built up over the years will collapse.
The heroic tales that have been told for years will come crashing down.
The narrative of legitimacy that has persisted for years will be called into question.
That is the real fear.
Throughout history, all political systems have made the same mistake.
They tried to defend themselves not through the law but by relying on the crowd.
They gathered crowds.
They held rallies.
They chanted slogans.
But no slogan could destroy a document.
No crowd could get rid of that file.
No amount of propaganda can replace the truth.
Nothing has changed today either.
Thousands of posts can be shared on social media.
Programs can be broadcast on television for hours on end.
Party leaders can shout from the podium.
But in the end, courts don’t look at slogans—they review the case files.
He examines the evidence, not the headlines.
He examines documents, not perceptions.
And that is precisely what bothers certain circles.
What is even more striking, however, is the contradiction in their understanding of democracy.
When they win the election, it is the will of the people.
When questioned, they claimed it was a coup.
The law is only as good as it suits them.
Guardianship when it suits them.
A celebration of democracy when they win.
A political maneuver when they lose.
This approach is not a democratic reflex.
This approach stems from viewing politics as if it were private property.
Yet democracy is not a system that should only be defended on the day you win.
Even the day you lost must be defended.
Decisions that you don’t agree with still need to be defended.
Because true democrats defend not only the results but also the rules.
That is exactly what is missing from today’s debate.
Loyalty to people rather than trust in rules.
Loyalty to the staff rather than commitment to principles.
Political allegiance instead of trust in the law.
The question is this:
If everything is so clear, why is there so much anger?
Why is there so much fear?
Why are there so many attacks?
And why are those who talk about the court proceedings—rather than the proceedings themselves—being targeted?
Perhaps the answer lies right here.
Because sometimes people aren’t afraid of the truth itself, but of its coming to light.
And sometimes, the ones who speak the loudest are actually the ones who are most worried.
This concern lies at the heart of the convention debate.
It is not a court ruling.
A fear of confrontation.
A fear of being held accountable.
And the fear that long-established political narratives might unravel.
WHAT HAPPENED TO KILIÇDAROĞLU:
From Political Purges to the Creation of Scapegoats
There is one unchanging rule in the history of politics:
When a ruling group starts making mistakes, it begins by talking about scapegoats rather than those responsible.
Because taking responsibility is hard.
It's hard to explain.
It's hard to admit you're wrong.
It is much easier to set a goal instead.
The guilty party is selected.
All eyes are on him.
All the failures are blamed on him.
All the crises are blamed on him.
This is exactly what is happening to Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu within the CHP today.
Just think…
The process that began after the 2023 elections was not limited to political criticism.
It was almost as if a systematic purge was being carried out.
A figure who had served as party chairman for years was suddenly declared the source of all the party’s problems.
The election had been lost.
Kılıçdaroğlu is to blame.
The organization had disbanded.
Kılıçdaroğlu is to blame.
A crisis had erupted in the municipalities.
Kılıçdaroğlu is to blame.
The convention had become a source of controversy.
It’s Kılıçdaroğlu’s fault again.
It was as if everyone at the party was a child.
It was as if one person had made all the decisions on their own.
It’s as if those speaking from the podiums today, those offering commentary on television, and those walking the halls of party headquarters had no responsibility whatsoever in the past.
In reality, however, things are quite different.
A significant number of those targeting Kılıçdaroğlu today were political allies of his for years.
He served on his lists.
He assumed office through his appointments.
He became a member of parliament under his leadership.
He became mayor.
He became a party official.
Now they're trying to pin the entire blame on one person.
This is not a political criticism.
This is political ingratitude.
What’s even more interesting is this:
For months, a fierce campaign was waged against Kılıçdaroğlu.
Insults were hurled.
Insults were hurled.
The culture of political lynching has been normalized.
Dissenting voices within the party were silenced.
Export requests were discussed.
The liquidation lists have been prepared.
People were targeted on social media.
And while all this was happening, it was claimed to be done in the name of democracy.
Today, however, those same circles are speaking out about the rule of law, justice, and political decorum.
One can't help but ask:
Where was justice yesterday?
Where was justice yesterday?
Where was political courtesy yesterday?
Throughout history, all revolutions and all political movements have faced the same test.
Those who demanded freedom while in the opposition could not tolerate criticism once they came to power.
Those who wanted democracy tried to silence dissenting voices.
Those who demanded justice applied a different set of rules to their own circles.
Because the issue was often not about principle but about power.
This is also at the heart of the current debate within the CHP.
Is the principle what matters?
Or are you taking sides?
Is the law more important?
Or is it the winning team?
Is democracy important?
Or is it a chair?
It is impossible to resolve the crisis without answering these questions.
This is where the biggest contradiction comes to light.
On the one hand, people are saying that Kılıçdaroğlu is politically finished.
On the other hand, they are being blamed for every incident that occurs.
On the one hand, it is said to be ineffective.
On the other hand, it is claimed to be the driving force behind every development.
On the one hand, it’s said to be unimportant.
On the other hand, all his energy is being spent on fighting him.
This logical contradiction alone speaks volumes.
Because the issue isn’t really about Kılıçdaroğlu.
The issue is the political memory he represents.
The issue is the organizational culture he represents.
The issue is the past he represents.
And the desire of certain circles to come to terms with this very past.
But there is an important fact that is often overlooked here.
History does not judge those who have been made scapegoats;
It also names those who unfairly target others.
The purges that are met with applause today may become a source of shame tomorrow.
Those hailed as heroes today may be called into question tomorrow.
The political narratives created today may be resolved tomorrow.
But one thing remains true:
No political party can build its future by turning its past into an enemy.
No movement can grow by erasing its own memory.
And no political leadership can exonerate itself before history by placing all the blame on a single person.
Because history ultimately asks this question:
“Since he was the one at fault…”
”So where were you at the time?”
Did the Judiciary Plunge the CHP into a Crisis, or Did the CHP Do It to Itself?
In the end, all major political crises come back to the same point.
In front of a mirror.
Because a movement’s true rival is not always the opposing party.
Sometimes, one’s true adversary is the contradictions one creates oneself.
This is exactly the crisis the CHP is facing today.
A party that has been criticizing the government for years is now unable to address the questions arising within its own ranks.
A party that has been holding others accountable for years is now uncomfortable with the questions being directed at it.
A party that has been calling for transparency for years is now characterizing scrutiny of its internal processes as an “attack.”.
That is the crux of the crisis.
The story being told to the public today is this:
“The CHP is under attack because it is so strong.”
However, there is another possibility.
Perhaps the CHP isn't under attack.
Perhaps the CHP is being crushed under the weight of its internal contradictions.
Maybe the problem isn't outside, but inside.
Perhaps the reckonings that have been put off for years are now knocking at the door.
Because no political structure can escape its own realities forever.
No organization can survive against the will of its own base.
No government can establish lasting legitimacy by silencing its own ranks.
In recent years, we have seen the same reaction in every crisis that has arisen within the CHP.
There's a problem.
At first, it was denied.
Then he was looked down upon.
Then a state of emergency was declared.
He was later found guilty.
Finally, a story about victimization was written.
This cycle repeated itself over and over again.
But none of them asked the real question:
“How did we end up here?”
Because the moment that question is asked, all preconceptions are shattered.
All the slogans are fading away.
All propaganda slogans are losing their meaning.
And all that remains is the stark truth.
Politics is the art of responsibility.
If there are disputes within municipalities today, there are those responsible for them.
If party conventions are being discussed today, there are those responsible for this.
If there are rifts within organizations today, there are those responsible for them.
If trust within the party has eroded today, there are those responsible.
To attribute all of this to external forces is to reduce politics to child’s play.
Because mature politicians don’t make excuses.
Takes responsibility.
It's easy to blame the government.
It's easy to blame the judiciary.
It's easy to blame your opponent.
The hard part is looking in the mirror.
The hard part is being able to ask, “Where did we go wrong?”.
This is where real politics begins.
Perhaps this is the real crossroads facing the CHP today.
The first method;
To label every critic a traitor.
Treating every case as an operation.
To label every decision a coup.
Viewing every question as hostility.
In short, resorting to the politics of victimhood.
The second option is;
To engage in self-criticism.
Confronting mistakes.
Restoring broken trust.
Not shirking responsibility.
And to reestablish institutional legitimacy.
The first path brings applause.
The second path brings respect.
The first method leads to overcrowding.
The second path creates history.
Throughout history, all major political movements have faced the same test.
Those who tried to silence their critics have been discredited.
Those who were able to face themselves have grown up.
Because democracy isn't just about winning elections.
Democracy is about accountability.
Democracy is the ability to tolerate criticism.
Democracy is the ability to admit one’s own mistakes.
That is exactly what is missing today.
And in the end, there’s only one question left:
If Kılıçdaroğlu is the only one to blame…
If the AK Party is entirely to blame…
If the judiciary is entirely to blame…
If the state is entirely to blame…
So who has been leading the party for years?
Who has the authority?
Who is responsible?
Who will be held accountable?
That is the question that needs to be answered.
Because no political movement can survive indefinitely by blaming others.
One day, he’ll have to stand in front of the mirror.
And when that day comes, it won’t be slogans that speak—it will be the facts.
It is not the crowd that speaks, but conscience.
It’s not propaganda; history speaks for itself.
History, however, always reaches the same conclusion:
Movements that cannot confront their own mistakes will eventually be crushed by them.
And perhaps the biggest issue facing the CHP today is not a court ruling.
This is not a convention debate.
It is not a political dispute.
The real issue is this:
Do we still have the courage to look in the mirror while searching for the culprit?