To read today's debates within the Republican People's Party as merely a \u201cchange of leader\u201d or a \u201crenewal of cadres\u201d would be to oversimplify the issue. Because what is happening is a much deeper rupture than a change of leadership. This rupture is directly related to the loosening and even dissolution of a party's relationship with its historical identity.<\/p>\n
The CHP is not only a party in Turkish politics, but also the carrier of a line, a claim and a political tradition. For many years, this tradition defined itself within a leftist, social democratic, publicist and secular framework. This definition was not just an ideological label; it was also a sense of direction. Where a party looked, what it stood for, which social segments it leaned on - all these were determined by this framework.<\/p>\n
Today we are going through a period in which this framework is blurred. The concept of \u201cchange\u201d is a powerful slogan, but the content of this slogan is not clear. This is precisely why, no matter how loudly the claim of change is voiced, the question becomes inevitable: What does this change change?<\/p>\n
If there is to be a change, it must first be visible at the ideological level. Is there a shift in economic policy? Has the emphasis on labor strengthened? Has social democracy been redefined? Has publicism been adapted to current conditions? If there are no clear and strong answers to any of these questions, there is not a transformation, but only a displacement.<\/p>\n
This is exactly the picture on the ground today: not a strong ideological reconstruction, but a search for a clear direction. There is no clear political line. There is no coherent discourse. There is no coherent ideological framework. This turns politics into a collection of reactions rather than a program.<\/p>\n
It is precisely at this point that the concept of \u201closs of trajectory\u201d gains meaning. Because when a political movement loses its direction, it becomes unclear what it stands for as well as what it does not stand for. This uncertainty may seem like flexibility in the short term, but in the long term it leads to identity erosion.<\/p>\n
One of the most striking indicators of this process is the re-centering of the names who in the past had directed the harshest criticism at the party. When Emine \u00dclker Tarhan and Muharrem \u0130nce left the CHP, they did not merely express a difference of political preference; they developed a direct rejection. They questioned the party leadership, the ideological line and its representative capacity.<\/p>\n
These criticisms were not ordinary. Expressions such as \u201cde-identification\u201d, \u201cbreak with Atat\u00fcrk's line\u201d, \u201cdistancing from the organization\u201d, \u201closs of claim to power\u201d target not only a party's policies but also its raison d'\u00eatre. Such criticisms are either true or not. But in either case, it must produce results.<\/p>\n
Today, those promises are there, but there is no accountability for those promises.<\/p>\n
What is even more striking is that there is no sharp rupture between the structure of the period when these criticisms were leveled and the structure of today. The same political culture, the same cadres, the same reflexes continue to a large extent. The picture that emerges in this situation is this: While the ground criticized has not disappeared, the critics are returning.<\/p>\n
This contradiction is not just an individual inconsistency; it is a sign of a larger problem.<\/p>\n
Today, a significant part of the debate is centered on Kemal K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7daro\u011flu. However, putting all the burden on a single name is to analyze politics by personalizing it. However, politics is read through structures rather than personalities. In an environment where the same cadres continue to exist and the same language continues to a large extent, placing all the responsibility on a single figure does not explain the reality - it obscures it.<\/p>\n
So the first and most fundamental question remains:<\/p>\n
Is this change really ideological, or is it only a cadre change?<\/strong><\/p>\n If there is no clear answer to this question, there is not change, there is uncertainty. And politics cannot survive on uncertainty for long.<\/p>\n Because the voter will eventually ask: If the answer to this question is blurred, there is a crisis.<\/p>\n Today's process in the CHP may not be a renewal. Ideological disorientation.<\/strong><\/p>\n And if this is true, it is no longer just a CHP issue. THE WEIGHT OF THE WORD: WHAT DOES POLITICS BECOME WHEN COHERENCE COLLAPSES?<\/strong><\/p>\n Politics stands on a very simple foundation: The value of a politician is measured not only by what he says, but also by how much he can carry what he says. Because politics is not only about taking a position, it is also about bearing the cost of that position. If there is no price, words have no value.<\/p>\n This is at the heart of the debates around the CHP today: This rupture is not an ordinary contradiction; it is a rupture that directly erodes political trust.<\/p>\n WHERE DOES THE LIMIT OF SPEECH END?<\/strong><\/p>\n Muharrem Ince and When they left the CHP, they did not only choose a different path. At the same time, they built an extremely harsh, sharp and systematic discourse to legitimize that path.<\/p>\n These discourses went far beyond the limits of classical \u201cinternal party criticism\u201d.<\/p>\n And some statements, in particular, turned into language that directly questioned the legitimacy of a party.<\/p>\n At this point, the issue is no longer a difference of opinion. FROM CRITICISM TO REJECTION<\/strong><\/p>\n Emine \u00dclker Tarhan's line was even clearer. CHP:<\/p>\n defended.<\/p>\n This kind of discourse makes it difficult to turn back. Because this is not a criticism of \u201can improvable structure\u201d; it is a claim that \u201cit is unacceptable as it is\u201d.<\/p>\n And this claim was taken one step further: So criticism has turned into an alternative argument.<\/p>\n THE POLLS THE LAST REFEREE OF POLITICS<\/strong><\/p>\n But politics is measured by results, not just words.<\/p>\n The fact that the established alternatives did not find a strong response in the society showed this:<\/p>\n Society did not find this rupture convincing.<\/p>\n At this point, two possibilities arise:<\/p>\n In both cases, the result is the same:<\/p>\n The claim was not sustainable.<\/strong><\/p>\n BACK THE MOST DIFFICULT QUESTION<\/strong><\/p>\n And now we come to the main issue.<\/p>\n Today, the same names are again on the same political ground.<\/p>\n At this point politics can no longer run away.<\/p>\n Because the questions remain:<\/p>\n There is only one answer to these questions:<\/p>\n What has changed?<\/strong><\/p>\n SILENCE HEAVIEST ANSWER<\/strong><\/p>\n There is no clear answer to these questions.<\/p>\n There is no self-criticism, What emerges at this point is not just emptiness.<\/p>\n This is directly this:<\/p>\n Political silence<\/strong><\/p>\n But in politics, silence is not neutral. Failure to respond.<\/strong><\/p>\n THE BEGINNINGS OF PRAGMATISM<\/strong><\/p>\n In politics, a comeback is possible. If you do:<\/p>\n that return is not principled; it is pragmatic.<\/p>\n So what is decisive now is this:<\/p>\n Need<\/strong><\/p>\n Principle is pushed to the background, conjuncture comes to the fore.<\/p>\n THE QUESTION: HOW DID THIS BECOME NORMALIZED?<\/strong><\/p>\n It is not only the returnees who should be questioned, but also the structure that accepts them.<\/p>\n These choices by \u00d6zg\u00fcr \u00d6zel redefine the boundaries of politics.<\/p>\n Because this normalizes this:<\/p>\n At this point, politics ceases to be a field of principle.<\/p>\n It becomes a field of maneuver.<\/strong><\/p>\n INFLATION IN POLITICS: THE PROMISE BECOMES WORTHLESS<\/strong><\/p>\n In the economy, inflation reduces the value of money. This is exactly what is happening today:<\/p>\n And the result:<\/p>\n The word has no weight.<\/strong><\/p>\n Let's clarify the picture that emerges:<\/p>\n This has only one consequence:<\/p>\n Insecurity<\/strong><\/p>\n And there is nothing more dangerous for politics.<\/p>\n FROM IDEOLOGY TO IDENTITY: THE PIVOTAL SHIFT IN POLITICS<\/strong><\/p>\n It is not only the actors that determine the quality of politics; This is the most critical break in the new style of politics shaped around the CHP today: This is not a coincidence. LEFT AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY: THE VACANT CENTER<\/strong><\/p>\n The left and social democracy are not historically a \u201cpolitics of emotion\u201d. This politics does not ignore identities, but it does not put them at the center either. Today, it is clear that this center has shifted.<\/p>\n This change is not a technical communication choice; WHY IS IDENTITY POLITICS ATTRACTIVE?<\/strong><\/p>\n Because identity politics is easy.<\/p>\n But it is also risky.<\/p>\n Because identity politics, rather than uniting has the potential to divide.<\/strong><\/p>\n THE MOST SENSITIVE AREA: BELIEF<\/strong><\/p>\n The most dangerous point of this process is this:<\/p>\n Direct involvement of beliefs in politics<\/strong><\/p>\n A picture that is becoming increasingly visible today:<\/p>\n becoming an active part of political communication.<\/p>\n Visibility is not the problem here.<\/p>\n The problem lies in this question:<\/p>\n Is it a representation or a use?<\/strong><\/p>\n TIMING GIVES EVERYTHING AWAY<\/strong><\/p>\n In politics, intentions are often read not in rhetoric but in timing.<\/p>\n Voters are now more conscious and are asking these questions:<\/p>\n What emerges when these questions remain unanswered is this:<\/p>\n Crisis of sincerity<\/strong><\/p>\n NEW STYLE OF POLITICS: PLEASING EVERYONE<\/strong><\/p>\n Today in particular But there is a critical distinction here:<\/p>\n If you do:<\/p>\n there begins this:<\/p>\n Not political flexibility, but political slipperiness<\/strong><\/p>\n THE POST-NATIONALIST VACUUM<\/strong><\/p>\n Another important transformation:<\/p>\n \u201cThe weakening of the \u201dnationalist\" line.<\/p>\n The vacuum created by the weakening of this line naturally leads to new searches:<\/p>\n This process is not a problem in itself.<\/p>\n But at this point the break begins:<\/p>\n If this orientation is not principled, it becomes instrumentalized.<\/strong><\/p>\n POLITICIZATION OF THE SACRED<\/strong><\/p>\n This is the most dangerous threshold of politics:<\/p>\n The sacred becomes a tool<\/strong><\/p>\n Because at this point:<\/p>\n And the long-term consequence of this situation:<\/p>\n It is the erosion of social trust.<\/strong><\/p>\n VOTERS READ THE TRUTH<\/strong><\/p>\n Today, voters are reading more clearly:<\/p>\n And he concludes:<\/p>\n \u201cThis is not representation, this is strategy.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Today the issue is this:<\/p>\n Does politics bring society together on a common ground?, If the latter:<\/p>\n It is not just a choice, THE REAL TEST OF CHANGE: POWER OR DEMOCRACY?<\/strong><\/p>\n In politics, \u201cchange\u201d is the easiest claim to make and the hardest to prove. The picture that emerged in the CHP after the congress is precisely a litmus paper in this respect. DISCOURSE DEMOCRACY<\/strong><\/p>\n PRACTICAL CENTRALIZATION?<\/strong><\/p>\n The \u201cchange\u201d discourse put forward under the leadership of \u00d6zg\u00fcr \u00d6zel rested on three main claims:<\/p>\n These allegations were presented as a response to the CHP's long-criticized structure.<\/p>\n But politics is not about rhetoric, measured by practice.<\/strong><\/p>\n At this point, the following questions are inevitable:<\/p>\n If the answer to these questions is not clear, ASSEMBLY: RENEWAL OR REDISTRIBUTION?<\/strong><\/p>\n Congresses do not only change leaders. The structure that emerges today:<\/p>\n on which it is based.<\/p>\n But here is the critical distinction:<\/p>\n Is this a democratic expansion or a consolidation of power?<\/strong><\/p>\n If power is concentrated in a narrower area, A TRUE TEST OF INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY<\/strong><\/p>\n There is only one way to know whether a party is democratic or not:<\/p>\n How he responds to criticism<\/strong><\/p>\n If you do:<\/p>\n there begins this:<\/p>\n Control, not democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n THE ISSUE OF EXPULSION AND EXCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n The expulsion mechanism is sometimes necessary in politics. It is precisely in this respect that the debates on expulsion and exclusion, which come up from time to time within the CHP today, are important.<\/p>\n Because these debates raise the question:<\/p>\n \u201cIs it still possible to think differently?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n A PICTURE AT ODDS WITH THE RETURNS<\/strong><\/p>\n At this point, an even more striking contradiction emerges:<\/p>\n On the one hand:<\/p>\n On the other side:<\/p>\n Muharrem Ince and This picture raises the question:<\/p>\n What is a border? Who is inside, who is outside and why?<\/strong><\/p>\n THE BIGGEST CONTRADICTION<\/strong><\/p>\n The picture that emerged today can be summarized most clearly as follows:<\/p>\n This contradiction is not only an internal party problem.<\/p>\n This also raises the question:<\/p>\n How will this structure govern if it comes to power?<\/strong><\/p>\n CHP'S HISTORICAL CYCLE ACCELERATES<\/strong><\/p>\n CHP history:<\/p>\n always has been.<\/p>\n But the difference today is this:<\/p>\n This cycle accelerated and normalized.<\/strong><\/p>\n Everything that becomes normalized becomes unquestioned. WHAT DOES THE GRASSROOTS SEE?<\/strong><\/p>\n Today, the party base and the voters see this:<\/p>\n And he concludes:<\/p>\n \u201cIt's not a change, it's a relocation.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The process happening in the CHP today:<\/p>\n This one:<\/p>\n is a search for direction and a redistribution of power<\/strong><\/p>\n But the only question that will determine the fate of this process is this:<\/p>\n Is this change principled or cyclical?<\/strong><\/p>\n A TIME FOR CALCULATION, NOT MEMORY: THE LAST TEST OF POLITICS<\/strong><\/p>\n Throughout this article we have moved along the same axis: It is now possible to see the whole picture.<\/p>\n This debate is not just a party debate, nor is it limited to the return of a few names. Is politics still based on principle or only on position?<\/strong><\/p>\n WHAT THE PARTS HAVE IN COMMON<\/strong><\/p>\n Let's simplify the picture:<\/p>\n On one side:<\/p>\n On the other side:<\/p>\n And in the background:<\/p>\n CURRENT PHOTO MORE THAN A COMEBACK<\/strong><\/p>\n Recent developments have concretized this debate:<\/p>\n This is not just a participation.<\/p>\n This is a is a political message.<\/strong><\/p>\n But like any message, it raises a question:<\/p>\n What has changed?<\/strong><\/p>\n THE DEPTH OF THE CONTRADICTION<\/strong><\/p>\n Even more striking is this:<\/p>\n In this case, the return, when unexplained, means the following:<\/p>\n Suspension of coherence<\/strong><\/p>\n GRASSROOTS QUESTION: WHERE WERE YOU IN DIFFICULT TIMES?<\/strong><\/p>\n Politics is not just a game between leaders.<\/p>\n The base carries the memory.<\/p>\n And the grassroots asks the question:<\/p>\n \u201cWhere were you in difficult times?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Because politics is not a choice made at leisure; If a politician:<\/p>\n This inevitably leads to the following discussion:<\/p>\n Is it a stance or a positioning?<\/strong><\/p>\n NEW MODEL UNACCOUNTABLE POLITICS<\/strong><\/p>\n The model that emerged today is now clear:<\/p>\n The name of this model is clear:<\/p>\n Politics without calculation<\/strong><\/p>\n And as this model becomes more widespread, the nature of politics changes.<\/p>\n THE MOST DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCE: THE COLLAPSE OF TRUST<\/strong><\/p>\n The only thing that keeps politics alive:<\/p>\n Trust<\/strong><\/p>\n But the picture that emerged today:<\/p>\n It shows.<\/p>\n And the result of that:<\/p>\n Cynicism<\/strong><\/p>\n So society now says:<\/p>\n At this point, politics does not produce representation. HISTORICAL THRESHOLD FOR CHP<\/strong><\/p>\n The issue is clear for the CHP today:<\/p>\n This is not just an internal party debate.<\/p>\n This one:<\/p>\n is a matter of identity and direction<\/strong><\/p>\n Any move made without answering this question will be temporary.<\/p>\n THE QUESTION WITH NO ESCAPE<\/strong><\/p>\n Now let's ask the most obvious question:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cWhat does this party stand for?\u201d<\/p>\n
\nThis could be the beginning of a much deeper process:<\/p>\n
\nThis is a question of the future of the left and social democracy in Turkey.<\/p>\n
\nA promise and the will to stand by that promise.<\/p>\n
\nThe rupture between word and deed.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nEmine \u00dclker Tarhan<\/p>\n\n
\nIt means \u201cthis structure is wrong\u201d.<\/p>\n
\nHe did not just criticize-he rejected.<\/p>\n\n
\nA new party was formed.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nnor an ideological redefinition,
\nnor a confrontation.<\/p>\n
\nSilence often means:<\/p>\n
\nBut this return has to mean something.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nIn politics, inflation reduces the value of a promise.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nwhat is decisive is that politics on what grounds it is built.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nWhile the ideological ground is weakening, the politics of identity and emotion is gaining strength.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nThis is the direct result of a change of direction.<\/p>\n
\nOn the contrary, it is based on a very concrete ground:<\/p>\n\n
\nBecause what is at the center is not identity, equality.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\nis an ideological pivot.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\nEkrem Imamoglu and
\nThe style of politics centered around \u00d6zg\u00fcr \u00d6zel,
\ndescribes itself as \u201cinclusive\u201d.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nor does it reduce society to manageable identities?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nis a long-term political rupture.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nBecause change is not just about rhetoric; how power relations are reconstituted<\/strong> understandable.<\/p>\n
\nThis is where the distance between discourse and practice is measured.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n\u201cThe discourse of \u201dchange\" remains a claim.<\/p>\n
\nConventions change the balance of power.<\/p>\n\n
\nthere is no change, there is only repositioning<\/strong> There are.<\/p>\n\n
\nBut when used frequently and controversially, it ceases to be a means of defense;
\nbecomes a tool of repression, not discipline.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\nThe example of Emine \u00dclker Tarhan is critical in this respect.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nUnquestioned politics over time it's empty.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\nword, position, turn and the political meaning they create.<\/p>\n
\nThis debate directly concerns the following:<\/p>\n\n
\n\u2192 harsh rhetoric
\n\u2192 rupture
\n\u2192 search for alternatives
\n\u2192 failure
\n\u2192 return back<\/li>\n
\n\u2192 ideological criticisms
\n\u2192 party building
\n\u2192 not finding a response
\n\u2192 retreat
\n\u2192 readmission<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
\n\u2192 discourse of change
\n\u2192 new lineup
\n\u2192 search for direction<\/li>\n
\n\u2192 the claim of inclusiveness
\n\u2192 orientation towards different identities
\n\u2192 ideological uncertainty<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
\n
\n
\nis a position taken at a difficult time.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\nIt only breeds insecurity.<\/p>\n\n
\n