An open question to CHP mayors: Who is your reference, the Justice and Development Party or Ahmet \u0130svan, Vedat Dalokay and \u00dcnal Ozan? Before answering this question, you need to look in the mirror. Because in politics, deeds, not words, are decisive. And today, your practice speaks louder than anything you say.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey do it\u201d ethos<\/strong><\/p>\n The prevailing mentality in many CHP municipalities today is clear: \u201cAKP does it this way, but we do it a little better.\u201d This is not a defense, but a direct confession. Because this sentence admits this: Your bar is not what is right, but what is slightly higher than your opponent's mistakes.<\/p>\n Tender processes are controversial. Then you come out and say: \u201cWe are different.\u201d<\/p>\n According to what?<\/p>\n Founding legacy or signboard?<\/strong><\/p>\n The CHP still says it carries the legacy of the party founded by Mustafa Kemal Atat\u00fcrk. But heritage is not a signboard. It is either carried or lost.<\/p>\n What did Ahmet \u0130svan do? He brought services to poor neighborhoods, prioritizing public good over rent. And what do you do?<\/p>\n Do you plan cities, or do you manage a tender calendar? The answer to these questions lies not in your rhetoric but in your practices.<\/p>\n \u201cLess bad\u201d politics<\/strong><\/p>\n The most dangerous lie is this: \u201cWe are not as bad as the AKP.\u201d<\/p>\n This is the lowest standard of politics. It is not rejecting decay, but adapting to it. Because \u201cbeing less evil\u201d means getting used to evil over time.<\/p>\n What you call a small concession today becomes a system tomorrow. And at some point you look back and you see this: The Question of the Bar: Where Does CHP Municipalism Look?<\/strong><\/p>\n The simplest but most disturbing question to ask CHP mayors is: Who do you measure yourself against, your opponent or your own history?<\/p>\n You cannot avoid this question. Because the answer is already given, not in your words, but in your practice.<\/p>\n The essence of the problem is that what the CHP presents as a \u201cmoral reference\u201d is often an opposition derived not from within itself, but from the mistakes of the opponent. In other words, a weak equation is established: \u201cAKP is wrong \u2192 we are right.\u201d<\/p>\n This is not a sufficient moral ground for politics.<\/p>\n Let's be clear: The morality of a party is not measured by the sins of its opponent. The rhetoric of \u201cthey are bad, we are good\u201d produces a baseless legitimacy. If there is no merit within your own ranks, if transparency does not work, if accountability is not real, historical heritage alone will not save anything.<\/p>\n False Reference: \u201cWe are a little better than AKP\u201d simplicity<\/strong><\/p>\n Today, an implicit mentality prevails in many CHP municipalities: \u201cThey are bad, but we are not that bad.\u201d<\/p>\n This approach is the bankruptcy of the comparative morality established with the Justice and Development Party. Because if a political movement defines its morality according to the mistakes of its opponent, it has already lost its own morality.<\/p>\n Tender processes are still controversial. And then the same sentence is repeated: No, you're not. You are a lower profile version of the same game. This is not a defense, it is a confession. Because this approach recognizes that: Your bar is not what is right, but what is slightly higher than what is wrong with your opponent.<\/p>\n Correct Reference: Facing your own tradition<\/strong><\/p>\n There is a great history behind which the CHP takes refuge. But the issue is not to commemorate that history, but to carry it.<\/p>\n What did Ahmet \u0130svan do? He prioritized public good, not rent. And you?<\/p>\n Are the people really the decision-makers in your municipalities today, or are they just a crowd remembered on election day? The answer to these questions will give you away.<\/p>\n Loss of measure, not morality<\/strong><\/p>\n The real crisis is not corruption. The real crisis is that you have forgotten what you call \u201cright\u201d. Because now your bar has reached this point: \u201cIf we are not as bad as the AKP, we are fine.\u201d<\/p>\n This is the lowest point of politics.<\/p>\n You have to see this clearly: \u201cBeing less bad\u201d is not a virtue. It is just a slower state of decay.<\/p>\n What you call a small concession today becomes a system tomorrow. Small nepotisms turn into systematic staffing. And then you go back and ask: Because people see the difference now: Dangerous normalization<\/strong><\/p>\n What you call the \u201cexception\u201d today becomes the rule of tomorrow. Small favoritism evolves into systematic cadre formation, small concessions into permanent corruption, and silent mistakes into institutional decay. This process progresses not with noise, but with silence. And this is the most dangerous: People get used to it without realizing it, institutions transform without realizing it.<\/p>\n Then you go back and ask the same question: Because the issue is no longer singular mistakes, but a mentality that has become permanent. The distance between rhetoric and practice is not closing, on the contrary, it is deepening. And as this distance grows, trust erodes.<\/p>\n Clear warning The process of becoming the same<\/strong><\/p>\n The moment you land on the same ground with the Justice and Development Party, the race is over. Because they wrote the rules of that game. When you step on that field, there are only two possibilities: Either you lose or you look like them while winning.<\/p>\n And both are defeats.<\/p>\n Because it is not just about winning. It is about what kind of politics you win with. If you end up turning into the structure you criticize, that process has been lost from the beginning.<\/p>\n Where should the real race be?<\/strong><\/p>\n Do not compete with AKP mayors in corruption and shamelessness. There will be no winners in that race; only decay. As soon as you land on the same ground, you will not produce a difference, you will only become similar.<\/p>\n What befits a CHP mayor is to raise the bar, not lower it.<\/p>\n If you are going to compete: Because the point is not to be \u201ca little better than them\u201d, but to standardize what is right.<\/p>\n Political will and the problem of dependency<\/strong><\/p>\n Today the debate is constantly turning in the wrong direction: \u201cWho is behind whom?\u201d<\/p>\n But that is not the question. Politics is shaped by invisible relations of dependency rather than visible alliances. When principle retreats, the network of relations takes its place. Over time, this network replaces politics itself.<\/p>\n Decision-making mechanisms become blurred. And the most critical break occurs: The picture that emerges at this point is clear: A structure that leans on power centers instead of generating power.<\/p>\n And this structure produces a dependent line, not an independent politics.<\/p>\n The Way Out Reconstructing Reference<\/strong><\/p>\n Criticism alone is not enough. If it doesn't show a way out, it just repeats itself. So it is no longer a question of saying what is wrong, but of making clear what should be right.<\/p>\n The first step is clear: Re-establish the reference.<\/p>\n Politics has to be built on its own merits, not on the wrongs of the opponent. The era of generating legitimacy by saying \u201cthey are doing it\u201d must end. Because this approach will constantly drag you down.<\/p>\n The reference is either up or down.<\/p>\n Either you console yourself by saying \u201cwe are a little better than the AKP\u201d, There is no middle.<\/p>\n Corporate Ethics: System, Not Good Intentions<\/strong><\/p>\n Morality is sustained not by individual good intentions but by institutional imperatives. Therefore, what needs to be done is not to create discourse, but to change the system.<\/p>\n Procurement processes must be transparent without exception. These are not choices. Because if there is no system, good intentions will last for a while at most, and then dissolve.<\/p>\n Engaging the Public in the Process<\/strong><\/p>\n The biggest rupture today is between the people and the government. Democracy cannot be established with a mass that is remembered during elections and forgotten after the elections.<\/p>\n The real solution is clear:<\/p>\n Without real public involvement in decision-making processes, Participation is not about holding meetings. Unless this is done, \u201cpopulism\u201d will remain just a slogan.<\/p>\n Independent Politics: Generating Power or Leaning on Power?<\/strong><\/p>\n There are always two paths in politics:<\/p>\n Either you produce your own power, The first is difficult, costly and slow. This is precisely the problem we are facing today: The tendency to lean on power instead of generating it.<\/p>\n Unless that changes:<\/p>\n Decisions become blurred, And in the end there is no politics, only governance.<\/p>\n Final decision: Comfort or transformation?<\/strong><\/p>\n It is no longer a question of ideology, but of character.<\/p>\n The CHP has two paths ahead of it:<\/p>\n It will either stay in its current comfort zone and continue to be \u201cless bad\u201d, It is not a choice, it is a necessity.<\/p>\n Because the unchanging structure melts over time.<\/p>\n Epilogue<\/strong><\/p>\n It no longer matters who is behind whom.<\/p>\n The point is this: Principle, Because people don't listen to stories anymore. And he is asking for an account of that practice.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Bankruptcy of Comparative Ethics The Question of Reference: AKP or Isvan?<\/p>","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":284791,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[286],"tags":[15,289],"class_list":{"0":"post-284789","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-yazarlar","8":"tag-chp","9":"tag-manset"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284789","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=284789"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284789\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":284792,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284789\/revisions\/284792"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/284791"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=284789"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=284789"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=284789"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nTransparency is still controversial.
\nStaffing is legitimized by the distinction between \u201cours\u201d and \u201ctheirs\u201d.
\nAccountability has been reduced to a formality that is remembered from election to election.<\/p>\n
\nWhat did Vedat Dalokay do? He didn't save the day, he thought of the city.
\nWhat did \u00dcnal Ozan do? He took the people out of being spectators and brought them into management.<\/p>\n
\nDo you involve the public in the process or do you just issue press releases?
\nAre you expanding the public or your environment?<\/p>\n
\nWhat you call an exception today becomes the rule tomorrow.<\/p>\n
\nYou have become a copy of the structure you criticize.<\/p>\n
\nStaffing is still based on \u201cthose who are one of us\u201d.
\nTransparency is still a slogan.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cWe are different.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nWhat did Vedat Dalokay do? He chose planning, not populism.
\nWhat did Unal Ozan do? He included the people in the administration.<\/p>\n
\nAre your cities growing with a plan or with a tender schedule?
\nAre your cadres formed on merit or on loyalty?<\/p>\n
\nWhat you call an exception today becomes the rule tomorrow.<\/p>\n
\nSmall compromises become permanent corruption.
\nSilent mistakes turn into institutional decay.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cWhy don't we inspire confidence?\u201d<\/p>\n
\nYou promise something else and produce the same thing.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cWhy don't we inspire confidence?\u201d<\/p>\n
\nCompete in procurement transparency.
\nCompete in service that touches the people.
\nCompete in accountability.<\/p>\n
\nThe question is: Who bows before whom?<\/p>\n
\nThe line disappears.
\nDiscourse becomes different.<\/p>\n
\nPolitics is not done, politics is managed.<\/p>\n
\nOr you make the bar set by \u0130svan, Dalokay, Ozan a real benchmark.<\/p>\n
\nCadres have to be built on merit, not loyalty.
\nSpending has to be auditable and accessible.
\nEveryone has to be accountable, including the mayor.<\/p>\n
\nThese are a must.<\/p>\n
\nparticipation mechanisms are not made effective,
\nlocal democracy cannot be established.<\/p>\n
\nParticipation means sharing authority.<\/p>\n
\nor you lean on existing power centers.<\/p>\n
\nThe second is easy, fast but dependent.<\/p>\n
\nthe line disappears,
\npolitics loses its direction.<\/p>\n
\nor he will take a risk and build a really different politics.<\/p>\n
\nWho stands behind what?<\/p>\n
\nor take it out?<\/p>\n
\nIt looks at the practice.<\/p>\n