**On the Limits of Identity Politics, Inclusive Republicanism and the Misframing of the Issue of Alevism in Turkey
In Turkey “Establish an Alevi Party” call is presented as a current political proposition, but in reality intellectual laziness and escape from political responsibility is a product. Instead of solving the problem, this call redefines it, and in the wrong place. It effectively releases the state from its constitutional obligations and redefines inequality “lack of organization”to the public power. Thus, the historical and legal responsibility of public power is systematically rendered invisible.
Yet the most basic principle of modern political theory is clear:
Inequalities are not explained by the inadequacy of individuals or groups, but by the nature of the political and institutional order.
This article explains why the issue of Alevism is a “identity party” The theoretical, historical and contemporary theoretical, historical and contemporary perspectives discuss why the main issue is the institutional structure of the republic, the content of secularism and the possibility of an inclusive political subject.
Identity Politics: An Analytical Tool or a Political Trap?
Identity politics is discussed in two different contexts in contemporary political literature.
The first context is the struggle for visibility and recognition of historically excluded communities.
The second context is the political forms that emerged in the neoliberal era with the dissolution of the idea of citizenship, which divided politics into fragmented belonging and narrowed the public sphere.
In Turkey “Alevi Party” discussion clearly belongs to the second category.
Identity may be the starting point of politics, but when it becomes its ultimate framework, it narrows politics. Demands for rights break away from a universal language of citizenship and turn into negotiable and manageable demands. The state, on the other hand, treats these demands not as constitutional obligations but as differences that need to be managed.
Therefore, reducing the Alevism issue to identity politics is not in favor of Alevis; it does not produce results!
What is the issue of Alevism and what is it not?
Alevism, in the classical sense “minority identity” is not. Alevism historically:
It is not a community embedded in the state,
It is a social tradition that produces political distance from the rulers.
The essence of Alevi demands is not to demand representation, shares or privileges. The demand is for equal citizenship, a neutral state and true secularism. This brings the issue directly to the constitutional level.
A fundamental distinction should be made here:
The problem faced by Alevis, “The problem of Alevis” It is not. This problem is a regime problem where secularism has become dysfunctional and citizenship has lost its basis of equality. Regime problems are solved not by identity parties, but by constitutive politics.
The Peace Party Experience: A Historical Warning
The experience of the Peace Party in the 1990s is a historical laboratory for this debate. The party program contained progressive propositions in terms of secularism and state-faith relations. However, the political form could not carry this content. Because no matter how much the party tried to establish a universal language in the public sphere “Alevi party” coded as.
This coding was deliberate and produced three main results:
The demand for secularism has ceased to be a social issue,
Equal citizenship has been reduced to a group's expectation,
Criticism of the regime was neutralized.
This is not a failure but a structural consequence. When the right demands meet the wrong political form, they are absorbed by the system.
Alevi Sociality: Not Marginal, Democratic and Constitutive
There is a fundamental truth that is often overlooked - and sometimes deliberately rendered invisible - in this debate:
Alevis are one of the most peaceful, harmonious, democratic and modern segments of society.
Alevi sociality is a historically non-violent experience based on practices of reconciliation, consent and coexistence. This tradition, which extends from the Cem ritual to everyday life, is based not on hierarchical obedience but on consultation, common sense and moral equality. In this respect, Alevism has produced a social ethos that overlaps with modern democracy, not contradicts it.
Alevis are also a social group with well-developed organizational practices and a strong experience of collective action. This organization through associations, foundations, federations, local initiatives and cultural networks shows that Alevis are not a passive identity but an active citizen subject.
For this reason, Alevis have the historical and political capacity to stand side by side with all segments of society on the grounds of equal citizenship, democracy, rights and law. The historical orientation of the Alevi movement has not been to separate itself from society, but to transform society on the basis of equality.
The Imposition of Marginalization and the Alevi Political Mind
This being the case, Alevis “identity party” This is not only incompatible with sociological reality, but also radically contradicts the Alevi political mind. Confining oneself to a narrow and closed political space is a denial of the Alevi historical orientation.
Especially for Alevis from the social democratic and socialist tradition, such a formation cannot be acceptable. This tradition builds politics not on the narrowing of identity, but on public equality, social justice and universal rights. The social democratic and socialist Alevi political memory “a special group” but as an equal and constitutive part of the social whole.
Therefore “Alevi Party” It is a proposal that does not empower Alevis, but marginalizes them, narrows their political influence and alienates them from their historical orientation. For Alevis, such marginalization does not mean political gain, but political regression.
Kılıçdaroğlu and the Attempt to Liquidate Inclusive Politics
At this very point “Alevi Party” The current political function of the call becomes clear. Although on the surface this call is presented as opening up space for Alevis or Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, in reality it aims at the opposite. This discourse, which on the surface appears to be a proposal for representation, is in depth a functional intervention aimed at narrowing the inclusive political line, and to bracketing the ground of universal citizenship within the brackets of identity.
The main purpose of this call is this:
To confine Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, who has been able to establish an inclusive political line that is at peace with all segments of society, to a narrow identity framework, to pacify him politically and to eliminate his capacity to be an inclusive political subject. This move targets not only a politician but also the political possibility he represents. Because inclusive politics, to the extent that it claims to bring different social segments together on a common ground of equality and law, is disturbing for the existing power relations.
In this context “Alevi Party” The proposal is not an attempt to open space for an identity, but rather a strategy to fragment the inclusive political subject. It detaches the political struggle from the structural problems of the regime and compresses it into narrow identity-based areas. Thus, political criticism ceases to be a constitutive interrogation directed at the entirety of power relations; it becomes a “special request” level. This reduction erodes the public legitimacy of inclusive politics and renders it vulnerable.
Identity politics functions here not as a means of emancipation, but as a mechanism of narrowing and neutralization. While inclusive politics claims to organize pluralism within the framework of a common citizenship, this claim falls flat when confined to identity politics. Politics ceases to be a collective will that transforms society and turns into a collection of manageable and demarcable demands. This transformation means a regression not only for Alevis but for the democratic political sphere as a whole.
Therefore, this call should be read as an implicit strategy to neutralize both Alevi demands and the possibility of democratic transformation by dismantling inclusive politics, rather than giving Alevis political power.
The historical and organizational existence of the Republican People's Party is inconceivable without the political labor, organized struggle and hard work of Alevis.
Since its foundation, from the party's local organizations to its trade union lines, from election periods to moments of crisis, Alevis have been not only the CHP's voters, but also its cadres, the social ground that ensures continuity, and one of the essential elements of its political resistance.
This labor is not the product of any identity bargain, but of a historical commitment to the ideals of secularism, equal citizenship and public justice. Therefore, any attempt to redefine the CHP by detaching it from Alevis or by compressing the Alevi political existence into a narrow identity bracket means denying not only the present, but also the historical reality of the party.
Conclusion and Political Roadmap: Side by Side Citizenship, Constituent Democracy
Alevis have existed in this society not by standing apart, but by standing side by side. They have ensured their historical continuity not by withdrawing themselves into a closed and narrow identity sphere, but by waging the struggle for equal citizenship together with all segments of society. For this reason, the Alevi social experience is not the expression of a marginal identity politics, but of a constitutive practice of democratic citizenship.
Alevi existence is not a line of separation in the political history of Turkey; on the contrary, it represents the continuity of the demand for coexistence, pluralism and public equality. In this context, reducing Alevism to a party program is not only politically incorrect but also historically and sociologically reductionist.
Therefore, the following observation is now indisputable:
Alevism does not fit into a party program.
Because the Alevi issue is not about the representation of identity; it is about the nature of the state.
The structural inequalities experienced by Alevis cannot be explained by a lack of representation. The source of the problem is the loss of state neutrality vis-à-vis beliefs, the reduction of secularism from a founding principle to a management technique and the erosion of the equality basis of citizenship. Therefore, the solution is not new identity-based political formations, but constitutional and institutional restructuring.
Final Word: The Issue is the Republic, Not the Party
Alevis have remained on the stage of history not by marginalizing themselves in this society, but by standing side by side and fighting for equal citizenship together with everyone else. Therefore, what is being proposed to Alevis is a “identity party” but the reconstruction of a secular, democratic, social and inclusive republic.
Alevi mind, equality, not marginalization;
expansion, not contraction;
advocates social cohesion, not identity closure.
So the solution is clear:
The path of Alevis is not identity politics,
through the common ground of democracy.
And this path is not only for Alevis;
It is the common path for all those who demand equality, freedom and justice in Turkey.