Political Nullism

In recent days, Turkish political life has been dominated by nullism. Although ‘nullism’ is actually a legal term—referring to the invalidity of a legal transaction or religious act from the outset—it is now emerging as a new political ideology. We can define Political Nullism as the instrumentalisation of the law in the design of politics, and the attempt to erode, marginalise and ultimately eliminate a powerful opposition and its leaders—who could potentially unseat the ruling power—through legal means.

There are those who believe that the decisions handed down by the courts will shape politics and alter public opinion and support. Those esteemed individuals who know nothing of political science but claim to know politics very well; who have not read political history but can lecture you on it; who find themselves in the minds of television commentators and claim to know everything better than everyone else—they argue that the CHP and Özgür Özel will suffer immense damage from this, that their vote share will decline, whilst the AK Party and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s dwindling vote share will increase.

Frankly, I think the exact opposite.

Let me list the reasons.

1. The statements made by Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, appointed as CHP General Chairman following a ruling of absolute nullity, and the reactions to them: The meaning of the words ‘immorality’ and ‘purity’ used by Kılıçdaroğlu is highly sensitive and significant. To claim that these cases are not politically motivated implies believing that the lawsuits filed against the CHP and its municipalities are not political, but rather legal and justified, and consequently that those facing these lawsuits are guilty. In that case, Kılıçdaroğlu’s political stance inevitably shifts into a position of aiding and abetting the ruling party. The increasing prevalence of such operations to politicise the law—widely accepted by the public as an attempt to halt the unstoppable rise of the CHP under Özel’s leadership, which has emerged as the leading party in polls, and to prevent the corresponding decline of Erdoğan and the AKP—will produce the exact opposite result in the eyes of the public. If Kılıçdaroğlu wishes to continue in politics, he must refuse to be a tool of this operation; if he is so keen, he should have founded a new and separate party and stood for election. Consequently, the intense backlash against Kılıçdaroğlu from those weary of the AKP’s political hegemony and seeking change is, under these circumstances, inevitable. What should have been done was to support, rather than hinder, the successful CHP and its leadership. To speak of ‘purity’ is to condemn immorality; it is to tell one’s own children that they are corrupt and immoral, and such rhetoric is wholly inappropriate. The right course of action, in this political climate where the law has become politicised, is not to wink at those who say, ‘Come on, you take the reins,’ but to stand by those you call your own against such manoeuvres. Whether out of personal ambition or an inability to stand up to pressure, Kılıçdaroğlu, who has failed to demonstrate this principled and just stance, has lost all credibility in the eyes of CHP voters who have dedicated their hearts to the party. The crux of the matter is that Kılıçdaroğlu and his team are backing the wrong horse. His assumption of the party leadership through a null and void decision will bring about no change. It appears that, whether held early or on schedule, and regardless of whether Özgür Özel, Ekrem İmamoğlu or Mansur Yavaş stands as a candidate, it has become far more likely that one of the aforementioned figures will be elected president in the next election.

2. The opposition’s near-first-ever consolidation around the CHP and Özel, viewing the issue not as a party matter but as a matter of democracy: Internal consolidation has been achieved through the 81 provincial chairmen of the CHP issuing statements in support of Özel and MPs electing him as group leader. The support for the elected CHP leadership during this process from virtually all political parties and their leaders across the entire political spectrum—from left to right and top to bottom—has ensured external consolidation and demonstrated that the opposition as a whole stands firmly and justly on the side of the people. For Turkish politics and democracy, these days will go down in history as the days when the star of democracy began to shine once more.

3. The current state of the economic crisis in the country and its negative effects on the public have led to an increase in the perception of the main opposition party and its elected leader and team as a source of hope: Recent polls indicate that the CHP’s vote share has risen to the 34–35 per cent range. Assuming that, following the political turmoil, this vote share will continue to rise—as the public’s support for the politically aggrieved has historically always increased throughout Turkish political history—it is expected to rise further.

4. The growing number of those who believe the law has become politicised rather than the opposition being at fault, and the fact that this view is beginning to gain acceptance on the international stage: Following the absolute nullity ruling, there has been a noticeable intensification of attention and criticism abroad, particularly in Europe, regarding the recent violations of the rule of law in Turkey.

It is in line with these four main points that we will see what unfolds in the coming period. For the CHP to emerge from this abnormal process and return to normality, the immediate convening of a party congress and the delegates’ election of a deserving party leader currently appear to be the most appropriate course of action.

In short, it is far more likely that the founding party of the Republic will emerge from this process not weakened, but rather strengthened.