An open question to CHP mayors: Who is your reference, the Justice and Development Party or Ahmet İsvan, Vedat Dalokay and Ünal 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.
“They do it” ethos
The prevailing mentality in many CHP municipalities today is clear: “AKP does it this way, but we do it a little better.” 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.
Tender processes are controversial.
Transparency is still controversial.
Staffing is legitimized by the distinction between “ours” and “theirs”.
Accountability has been reduced to a formality that is remembered from election to election.
Then you come out and say: “We are different.”
According to what?
Founding legacy or signboard?
The CHP still says it carries the legacy of the party founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. But heritage is not a signboard. It is either carried or lost.
What did Ahmet İsvan do? He brought services to poor neighborhoods, prioritizing public good over rent.
What did Vedat Dalokay do? He didn't save the day, he thought of the city.
What did Ünal Ozan do? He took the people out of being spectators and brought them into management.
And what do you do?
Do you plan cities, or do you manage a tender calendar?
Do you involve the public in the process or do you just issue press releases?
Are you expanding the public or your environment?
The answer to these questions lies not in your rhetoric but in your practices.
“Less bad” politics
The most dangerous lie is this: “We are not as bad as the AKP.”
This is the lowest standard of politics. It is not rejecting decay, but adapting to it. Because “being less evil” means getting used to evil over time.
What you call a small concession today becomes a system tomorrow.
What you call an exception today becomes the rule tomorrow.
And at some point you look back and you see this:
You have become a copy of the structure you criticize.
The Question of the Bar: Where Does CHP Municipalism Look?
The simplest but most disturbing question to ask CHP mayors is: Who do you measure yourself against, your opponent or your own history?
You cannot avoid this question. Because the answer is already given, not in your words, but in your practice.
The essence of the problem is that what the CHP presents as a “moral reference” is often an opposition derived not from within itself, but from the mistakes of the opponent. In other words, a weak equation is established: “AKP is wrong → we are right.”
This is not a sufficient moral ground for politics.
Let's be clear: The morality of a party is not measured by the sins of its opponent. The rhetoric of “they are bad, we are good” 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.
False Reference: “We are a little better than AKP” simplicity
Today, an implicit mentality prevails in many CHP municipalities: “They are bad, but we are not that bad.”
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.
Tender processes are still controversial.
Staffing is still based on “those who are one of us”.
Transparency is still a slogan.
And then the same sentence is repeated:
“We are different.”
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.
Correct Reference: Facing your own tradition
There is a great history behind which the CHP takes refuge. But the issue is not to commemorate that history, but to carry it.
What did Ahmet İsvan do? He prioritized public good, not rent.
What did Vedat Dalokay do? He chose planning, not populism.
What did Unal Ozan do? He included the people in the administration.
And you?
Are the people really the decision-makers in your municipalities today, or are they just a crowd remembered on election day?
Are your cities growing with a plan or with a tender schedule?
Are your cadres formed on merit or on loyalty?
The answer to these questions will give you away.
Loss of measure, not morality
The real crisis is not corruption. The real crisis is that you have forgotten what you call “right”. Because now your bar has reached this point: “If we are not as bad as the AKP, we are fine.”
This is the lowest point of politics.
You have to see this clearly: “Being less bad” is not a virtue. It is just a slower state of decay.
What you call a small concession today becomes a system tomorrow.
What you call an exception today becomes the rule tomorrow.
Small nepotisms turn into systematic staffing.
Small compromises become permanent corruption.
Silent mistakes turn into institutional decay.
And then you go back and ask:
“Why don't we inspire confidence?”
Because people see the difference now:
You promise something else and produce the same thing.
Dangerous normalization
What you call the “exception” 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.
Then you go back and ask the same question:
“Why don't we inspire confidence?”
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.
Clear warning The process of becoming the same
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.
And both are defeats.
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.
Where should the real race be?
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.
What befits a CHP mayor is to raise the bar, not lower it.
If you are going to compete:
Compete in procurement transparency.
Compete in service that touches the people.
Compete in accountability.
Because the point is not to be “a little better than them”, but to standardize what is right.
Political will and the problem of dependency
Today the debate is constantly turning in the wrong direction: “Who is behind whom?”
But that is not the question.
The question is: Who bows before whom?
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.
Decision-making mechanisms become blurred.
The line disappears.
Discourse becomes different.
And the most critical break occurs:
Politics is not done, politics is managed.
The picture that emerges at this point is clear: A structure that leans on power centers instead of generating power.
And this structure produces a dependent line, not an independent politics.
The Way Out Reconstructing Reference
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.
The first step is clear: Re-establish the reference.
Politics has to be built on its own merits, not on the wrongs of the opponent. The era of generating legitimacy by saying “they are doing it” must end. Because this approach will constantly drag you down.
The reference is either up or down.
Either you console yourself by saying “we are a little better than the AKP”,
Or you make the bar set by İsvan, Dalokay, Ozan a real benchmark.
There is no middle.
Corporate Ethics: System, Not Good Intentions
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.
Procurement processes must be transparent without exception.
Cadres have to be built on merit, not loyalty.
Spending has to be auditable and accessible.
Everyone has to be accountable, including the mayor.
These are not choices.
These are a must.
Because if there is no system, good intentions will last for a while at most, and then dissolve.
Engaging the Public in the Process
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.
The real solution is clear:
Without real public involvement in decision-making processes,
participation mechanisms are not made effective,
local democracy cannot be established.
Participation is not about holding meetings.
Participation means sharing authority.
Unless this is done, “populism” will remain just a slogan.
Independent Politics: Generating Power or Leaning on Power?
There are always two paths in politics:
Either you produce your own power,
or you lean on existing power centers.
The first is difficult, costly and slow.
The second is easy, fast but dependent.
This is precisely the problem we are facing today: The tendency to lean on power instead of generating it.
Unless that changes:
Decisions become blurred,
the line disappears,
politics loses its direction.
And in the end there is no politics, only governance.
Final decision: Comfort or transformation?
It is no longer a question of ideology, but of character.
The CHP has two paths ahead of it:
It will either stay in its current comfort zone and continue to be “less bad”,
or he will take a risk and build a really different politics.
It is not a choice, it is a necessity.
Because the unchanging structure melts over time.
Epilogue
It no longer matters who is behind whom.
The point is this:
Who stands behind what?
Principle,
or take it out?
Because people don't listen to stories anymore.
It looks at the practice.
And he is asking for an account of that practice.