Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu is a person who carried a heavy burden during the most difficult periods of this party.
He tried to soften the CHP's structure, which for years was seen as hard, statist and distant to some segments of society. He made contact with conservative voters, developed a calmer language with Kurdish voters, and brought different political traditions together around the same table.
Despite all the criticism, the Table of Six was an important break in Turkish politics.
The March for Justice affected not only CHP supporters but also people of different views. After a long time, people realized that the opposition does not only speak out, but is also willing to pay the price.
The groundwork for winning Istanbul and Ankara was largely laid during his period.
Moreover, none of these elections were held on equal terms. Media power, state resources and a highly polarized environment were already narrowing the opposition's space.
But all this does not change another fact.
It would be both unfair and easy to blame every problem in the CHP on the shoulders of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu alone.
Because in politics no leader acts alone.
There were those who prepared candidate strategies, managed the organizational structure, set up election campaigns, and shaped delegation relations.
Özgür Özel, Veli Ağbaba, Oğuz Kaan Salıcı, Engin Özkoç, Faik Öztrak, Seyit Torun, Tekin Bingöl, Mahir Polat and many others have been influential in the party's decision-making mechanisms for years.
Today, it does not seem sincere to leave all the burden on Mr. Kemal alone and to portray the administrators of those times as if they had no responsibility.
Because if success is shared, so is responsibility.
“13 elections were lost,” they say.
And who made the campaign decisions during those elections?
Who managed the organizational structure?
Who prepared the reports that misread the pulse of society?
People have not forgotten that some of the names who make the harshest criticisms today were sitting in the most influential seats at the time.
This is partly at the root of the crisis of confidence.
Because voters now question not only the leaders but also the cadres around them.
People are looking at who fought, who defended their space alone.
Perhaps one of Mr. Kemal's biggest shortcomings was that he trusted some people around him too much.
He was not a spender.
He valued loyalty.
But in politics, sometimes too much patience can empower the wrong people.
Over time, some cadres turned into structures that grew their own influence rather than growing the party.
While the economy is the talk of the street, the party is caught in its own internal balances.
While young people were worried about the future, some executives were still calculating the congress.
The corruption allegations, discussions about money ties, shady footage and mayors switching parties are creating a serious erosion of public trust in the CHP.
Because people don't only look at what you say.
It also looks at what you become when you take power.
It disturbs people that a party that has been defended for years on the grounds of merit, morality, transparency and clean politics is now surrounded by so much controversy.
And there is a heavier question on people's minds today.
Were the mistakes made during the presidential election process really just misanalysis, miscommunication and political incompetence?
Or were some personal calculations, seat struggles, factional wars and future plans so effective that they overruled the will to win the election?
Even more disturbing is this;
Was the post-election balance of power more important for some names than the outcome of the election?
Because people are now looking not only at what was lost, but also at who took what position in that process.
Mr. Kemal's statement “I entered the elections with daggers in my back” should be read well.
Asking these questions is not treason.
It is an accounting of people who love their party.
Because a party does not shrink by losing elections.
It shrinks when it distances itself from the values it defends.