What is happening in the CHP?

Dear friends, we are perhaps experiencing the most difficult days since the founding of the Republic of Turkey. Many of you may be saying, ‘This country has weathered many storms, it will weather this one too.’ I am one of those who sincerely wish for this to come true. However, the situation in the country now requires more than just wishes.

Society is wondering how to weather this storm. In short, after the CHP emerged as the leading party in the 31 March 2024 local elections and CHP-run municipalities gained the opportunity to connect with the public, the political establishment appears to have lost the political power to change this situation, which is developing against its interests within the framework of the current legislation.

This political impasse, coupled with a loss of legitimacy, may have triggered a rift between the public and the government.

Given the negative economic indicators and the very low expectations for improvement, the political use of state power, even if not legally compliant, appears to be a deceptive option for the political power. Unfortunately, the fact that the only solution must be sought in democracy is also being overlooked. The prospect of a possible loss of power, which would subject the government's 23-year history to judicial scrutiny, appears to be the government's primary motivation.

Setting aside the reasons for avoiding elections, which is seen as a normal choice in democracies, I believe that the political pressure experienced by the CHP, which is seen as the leading party in the polls, must be analysed correctly. This must be considered alongside its economic, political and legal dimensions, as well as developments in foreign policy. This analysis is a subject for a separate article.

The day on which the pressure we mentioned on the main opposition began in its harshest form was 19 March 2025. On this date, Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu was detained and arrested due to allegations against him. Regardless of the allegations against him, the events show that this arrest was political rather than legal. Similarly, the arrest of district mayors and some metropolitan mayors is largely seen as political by the public. Various polls indicate that this percentage ranges between 65% and 80%.

However, the 45th Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance's decision on 2 September to provisionally cancel the CHP's Istanbul Congress is of great importance, as it will seriously affect the country's political agenda and future. This decision also calls into question the election convention that determined the CHP's current leadership. In a normal legal system, it would be absurd for a district court to annul an election that was conducted and approved under the supervision of an institution such as the YSK, whose decisions are constitutionally beyond judicial review. However, the fact that this situation has arisen in Turkey has ignited a political crisis.

Faced with this decision, which does not comply with the rules of law in force, the CHP has activated its institutional reflexes and declared the decision ‘null and void’. This is an unprecedented stance in Turkish political history. The Chinese philosopher Mencius (372-289 BC) was one of the first thinkers in history to defend the right to resist unjust rule. Rousseau (1712-1778) was another thinker who held the same view. Many other thinkers have considered social resistance against a regime that resorts to oppression to be legitimate. These thinkers have profoundly influenced the formation of the concept of the rule of law.

Although some countries regulate the people's right to resist in their legislation, how and under what circumstances this right can be exercised continues to be subject to political considerations. There is a strong reaction from the ruling party to the CHP's stance. The fundamental issue overlooked by those who ask, ‘How can you not recognise a court ruling?’ is the fact that in a state governed by the rule of law, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary are obliged to act in accordance with the law. Any authority that exceeds its powers and limits loses its legitimacy when it attempts to legitimise this by hiding behind state power.

Legitimacy is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as ‘conformity with law, rules, or recognised principles; compliance with laws. Also, conformity with sound reasoning; rationality; justifiability.’ In this context, loss of legitimacy results in the severing of the bond between the government and the people, and the political power now seeks to maintain its power not through popular support but through arbitrary practices. This creates a cycle in which the loss of legitimacy continuously increases. As a result, either the government changes or it becomes totalitarian. It is possible to say that this is what is happening in Turkey.

When a government derives its power from the law but exempts itself from the law, this fits the definition of a ‘police state’ in political science literature. However, when we look at the current debates in the context of rights, even in a situation of complete lawlessness, our law does not recognise the right to resist. Whether this is good or bad is a different matter for debate. However, when we consider the CHP specifically, appealing a court decision that overturns the existing legal system under normal circumstances solely through judicial channels can cause serious problems in the functioning of politics. By taking this route, the CHP has declared that it does not recognise the decision, creating a de facto situation.

In a state structure with a high level of institutionalisation, this trauma inflicted on the legal system means that the government completely loses its legitimacy. Without law, there is no government. However, with the mobilisation of state power, a new legal order based on lawlessness may be sought. This would spell the end of popular sovereignty, the rule of law and democracy. In other words, abolishing the law and basing one's own existence on the law is nothing more than a political paradox.

Political parties are a fundamental prerequisite for the functioning of democracy and are therefore indispensable to democracy. The unlawful use of state power by those in power against a political party is not only illegal but also contrary to the spirit of democracy. The fact that the complaint was made from within the party cannot be used as a justification for the illegality.

Looking at the impact of all these events on the CHP, it appears that the methodological debates within the CHP have been completely shelved. Issues discussed at the micro level have completely disappeared, and a sense of solidarity has emerged among party members. It is possible that this situation could cause the government to become even more severe and try to push all the buttons at once. In the near term, the key point will be the ‘Congress Trial’ to be held in Ankara on 15 September.

In particular, statements made by the government contain words that could influence the hearing to be held in Ankara on 15 September. Leaving aside the fact that this is a crime under the law, it is now apparent that neither the government nor the opposition attaches much importance to the approach of adhering to the law. The fact that the Istanbul CHP provincial headquarters has been under police siege since the evening of 7 September has sharpened all sides. The interesting thing is that a group within the CHP, which acts in concert with the government, has also launched a war against the CHP, a war they have no chance of winning. So what is the reason for this attitude? Let's leave the answer to that to history.

No one can emerge victorious from this situation, which has brought unforgettable negativity to Turkish political history. The government has made a very dangerous choice and has embarked on practices that are worrying for the future of the country. The economic difficulties the government has been experiencing for a long time, its political predicament, and its failures in foreign policy are clearly causing it to make misguided moves. In my opinion, the only positive aspect of practices that ‘incite the people to hatred and hostility’ for the future of the country may be the lessons that will be learned to prevent them from happening again in the future. On the other hand, it would be inaccurate to claim that we are a society with a strong memory.

At this stage, there is an unspoken rule in Turkish politics: the victim wins. However, I do not believe anyone can predict what will be gained from this point onwards.