Political Anachronism

There is a discourse on the agenda. The CHP of the foundation years is brought and questioned in today's politics. The CHP was not democratic, it was oppressive, the CHP was jacobo, tutelary. The CHP does not govern, it oppresses, what has it ever done? It was like this in the past and it will be like this now. The past is between 1923 and 1950, the last time we stayed in 1950. Naturally, this view contains many mistakes.  

If we examine the parties in our country in general and the CHP in particular, we see that political parties undergo changes according to the effects of the events of the periods. For example, the CHP of 1930 and the CHP of 1950 are very different. Likewise, the CHP of the 1970s was pruned in 1972, and finally pinched in 1980. The September 12 coup literally mowed down the Turkish left. And by the state. Today's CHP, for example, struggles against those who use state power for their own politics.  

The CHP has historically reflected these changes in its organization and programs with intellectual phenomena and concepts such as left of center, social democracy, socialist international, social state. This is very important because the CHP has been a place for the struggle of ideas rather than an "exploitative" and "capitalist/sect/lover of mafia" approach as in other right-wing parties. It is a contribution to democracy. Political parties are like living organisms, they have dynamism. They change in accordance with the conditions. This should not be seen as pragmatism. On the contrary, these are strengthening supplements like food. There is no abnormality.

Yes, the CHP is a party founded by programming the genetic codes of a newly established state. Its first chairman Atatürk himself expressed this. It was very natural in the conditions of that day. It is true that from the 1930s onwards, there was a period of a party-state/state party.  However, what distinguishes the CHP from its European counterparts is that it was the representative of the official ideology of a newly founded country that was struggling to survive. It would be an incomplete and inaccurate assessment to look back to the days when war drums were sounding and harsh fascist winds were blowing around the world and say "wow, the CHP was not democratic". In this sense, the CHP is also the name of survival and existence. 

For example, there is no emulation of fascism or communism in the CHP statutes. In fact, Atatürk stated that such ideologies were not in accordance with the nature and character of the Turkish nation. CHP is a nationalist party, but it does not base its nationalism on race. The CHP defends the social state, but it also defends freedom of thought and enterprise. The CHP wanted multi-party life. I call this view "ideally democratic". 

Structurally, tens of criticisms can be made against the CHP of that period, but to make this criticism based on today's democratic values would be nothing more than a daily political discourse. Today's CHP, as a mass party, is a "state-free" structure with a social democratic perspective, in which ideas from socialists to the nationalist left are present and discussed. 

So what are the genetic codes carried over from those times to the present day? Republic, independence, secularism, nationalism, modernism are some of these codes. CHP voters and its institutional structure embrace these values. That's why statements such as "the CHP is in partnership with the PKK", "it supports terrorism", "it will divide the country" are nothing more than vulgar and shallow statements for CHP supporters. 

Let's verify the anachronistic propositions and look at them with the dialectical paradigm. Where will you place a political party on the brink of power, which is the hope of millions against one-man and party tutelage and domination? Certainly not next to the state. 

Those who want to place it somewhere in their own narrow mindsets will of course try gray/black propaganda methods under the guidance of the "party-state" far from political correctness. CHP voters are also vaccinated against this.

In fact, this is exactly what we are talking about right now. Do we believe in democracy, do we value freedom, do we dislike oppression, is the law our priority? Do we want to share equitably? Then our common issue is to bring together people who long for a democratic society based on rights and freedoms as soon as possible. 

What CHP is saying; "let's all come together and crown the Republic, which you have been complaining about for years, with democracy, which we also see as a deficiency". The task fell to the CHP today. The CHP has become the flagship. Tomorrow it will fall to someone else. In this sense, just as the CHP fulfilled its mission in the liberation and establishment, it strives to fulfill it today. Everyone can rest assured that rights and freedoms are guaranteed by the CHP. It is not possible to go back from the point reached.