The word “grassroots” is used a lot in politics.
But what the grassroots knows, what they agree with and where they stand is not talked about much.
Let's start from the beginning.
Most of the people do not even know that there is such a process as neighborhood delegate elections. The date, place and candidates are unknown. Because this information is often not shared. The process takes place in a narrow circle; the grassroots is excluded from the beginning.
But the chain starts right here.
Neighborhood delegates are elected.
They determine the district delegates.
District delegates in turn choose provincial delegates.
Provincial delegates have a say in the party's most critical decisions.
So a small balance established in the neighborhood grows upwards.
The first ring, in which the grassroots is not involved at all, determines the whole structure.
That is why the so-called “grassroots will” often does not reflect reality.
There is the will of the few who have access to information.
The majority face the outcome without knowing how the process works.
The delegate system exists on paper to strengthen representation.
In practice, it becomes a closed system in which a small group makes decisions on behalf of the majority. There are voters, but their influence is limited; there are delegates, but they answer upwards.
I have seen how this works in the field, not in theory.
In this process in my neighborhood of forty-three members, only five (5) delegates were to be elected. Despite this, the extent of the negotiations, pressures and interventions was remarkable.
I met with everyone one by one. I looked at who was really working hard, who had merit, who could represent the neighborhood. I prepared a list of the most meritorious names and submitted it as a petition to the district. The list was consciously independent; it was not affiliated with anyone.
As the process progressed, the picture changed.
“Pretend to be from the white list but vote for the blue list”, clearly immoral proposals were made. They were asked to behave one way on the surface and another way at the ballot box. I rejected this offer unequivocally.
Two days before the election, when I was out of the province, I learned this:
When word spread that the list would be independent, one of the candidates for the district presidency came to the neighborhood. He held a meeting with all the delegates. It is not known what was discussed and what was promised, but the picture became clear immediately after the meeting.
I was left off the list.
More important was this:
The same names who had said “we will remain independent” just a few days ago had united around the district chair candidate who had come to meet with them after this meeting. Previous promises were ignored and the list was effectively reshaped.
It was neither condemned nor questioned. This unethical intervention was considered normal and ordinary. The person who carried out this process later became the district president.
This is precisely where delegate aggrandizement begins.
Where a meritocratic list can be disbanded with a single intervention, even for the selection of five delegates.
And where nobody has a problem with it.
This is no exception.
This is the system itself.
The block list is the insurance of this order.
The packaging that starts in the neighborhood is protected in the district and locked in the province. It does not give individual will to the delegates; it offers a ready-made list. It rewards loyalty and punishes objections.
A sheet list is the opposite.
It is the choice of those who are not afraid of the delegates.
It makes individual names, merit and real support visible.
It opens space for surprise, objection and renewal.
That is why the sheet list is not a technicality, but the minimum requirement of internal party democracy.
And where is the grassroots in this?
Short answer Nowhere.
The grassroots is not the subject of this order, but the result of it.
They are not informed in the neighborhood, they are not represented in the district, they cannot make decisions in the province.
But in the end it is said “this is what the people wanted”.
The popular equivalent of the delegate suzerainty is clear.
People start not coming to meetings.
The bond with the party he/she is a member of weakens.
Because members' sense of belonging is not reinforced.
Labor is invisible, promises are not reciprocated, contributions are not valued.
You can be a member but you cannot be involved.
“There is a feeling that ”the decision is made upstairs anyway".
Politics ceases to be a field that requires participation; it turns into a game watched from afar.
Then comes silence.
Cooling starts.
And people gradually move away.
They go to the polls, but no longer out of expectation but out of habit.
Real regeneration does not happen with a signboard.
Without breaking the chain of neighborhood-district-provincial delegates, the same names will only be replaced.
And the question remains:
Does the grassroots really have a place in this chain or not?