Why Can’t Turkish Politics Do Without the ‘CHP’?

​To properly analyse the Republican People’s Party’s current political discourse, its structural dilemmas and future strategies, one must carefully understand the delicate balance between the party’s deep-rooted historical legacy and its efforts at modernisation. Accordingly, it is possible to clearly see the irreconcilable imbalance and the widening gap between the vision of full independence centred on production—which the founding leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk crowned with economic and industrial advances during the Turkish struggle for liberation and nation-building, and which elevated the peasantry to the status of the nation’s masters—and today’s practices, as well as the most significant criticisms on social media.

​When we look at the party’s historical trajectory, there lies behind it a colossal success story and institutional memory that cannot be underestimated. The CHP is not merely the party that founded our state. The CHP is also the party that shattered Anatolia’s ill-fated destiny and subsequently led the way in the construction of the railway network, industrial initiatives such as Sümerbank, land reform efforts and literacy campaigns; it is the architect of the Republic of Turkey. More importantly, it is a party that, following a global catastrophe such as the Second World War, under the leadership of İsmet İnönü, transitioned the country to a multi-party democratic regime in a bloodless and peaceful manner, demonstrating the maturity to hand over power through the ballot box. During the Bülent Ecevit era, the party inscribed hope on every rock and mountain with the motto ‘The land belongs to those who till it, the water to those who use it’, and succeeded in becoming the party of the people and labour by placing workers’ rights, trade unionism and the welfare state at its core. These historic victories and reforms demonstrate just how deeply populism and a strong sense of statehood are ingrained in the party’s DNA.

However, when we look at the most significant criticisms emerging on social media and in the streets today, it appears that the party is being crushed under the weight of this historical legacy and is moving forward like a bus with two different drivers each trying to turn the steering wheel in their own direction at the same time. Following Deniz Baykal, during Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s tenure, the party’s settings began to be adjusted. Kılıçdaroğlu acted like a master craftsman trying to open the factory gates to neighbours he had never met. Under the banner of ‘reconciliation’, the party’s boundaries were likely stretched to build bridges with conservative and centre-right voters. The Özgür Özel era, however, is the period of a younger master who, shifting into a higher gear and riding the momentum of the streets and the wind of the congress delegates, aims to become the “leading party”.

As the digital public sphere on social media has rightly highlighted, these two distinct leadership styles and the endless internal rivalry between the cliques behind them have caused the party to drift away from the resolute, cohesive and steel-like institutional identity of the party founded by Atatürk, which knew exactly what it wanted. This is the perception that has formed in the public eye.

The public has grown weary of harbouring the anxiety, “Where might the course veer?”, during every party congress or delegate battle. Furthermore, the fact that events have unfolded beyond the mere fulfilment of the political rivalry required between current political opponents in Turkish political life is also taking its toll on the party, causing deep wounds to form within its ranks. Indeed, according to the views of many legal experts in our country, practices that push the boundaries of the law—such as encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the Supreme Election Board or applying the Associations Law instead of the Political Parties Law where the latter should apply—have served to make the leadership disputes and divisions within the CHP even more pronounced.

​Beyond all these internal conflicts, the issue that has most severely undermined the party’s credibility and trustworthiness in the eyes of the broader public—and which has become the focus of uncompromising criticism on social media—is its stance on national security, the fight against terrorism and the survival of the state. In the party’s recent political manoeuvres, the indirect or direct dialogue established with the separatist terrorist organisation and the structures acting as its parliamentary extension has fuelled the perception among voters that the party has deviated from its founding principles, its understanding of the nation-state, and its perspective on the unitary state. We know that, however distressed the people of Anatolia may be by the economic devastation for which the current government is responsible, they will never compromise on their red lines when it comes to the integrity of the nation and the fight against terrorism. It is expected that those at the helm of the CHP are also aware of this. The most significant criticisms on social media centre on the CHP’s failure to maintain a clear, unconditional and unambiguous distance from terrorist groups, due to electoral calculations or alliance-seeking. The fact that a party founded by Atatürk refrains from erecting insurmountable walls between itself and separatist groups that threaten the very existence of the state—and their political counterparts—or that, at the very least, the public perception is that the party lacks such a stance, rightly invites criticism that the principles of nationalism and statism have been hollowed out.

Here, it is necessary to recall the true recipe for salvation that forms the party’s essence: Republicanism, Nationalism, Populism, Statism, Secularism and Revolutionism. In the view of many, the real solution for the CHP lies in an unconditional and complete return to its foundations and roots, represented by these six arrows. For each of these principles is like a link in a chain; placing greater emphasis on one whilst neglecting another renders the system entirely dysfunctional. For instance, weakening the principles of Nationalism and Statism whilst producing only an abstract discourse on Populism will not enable the party to attain either the seriousness required to govern the state or the stance needed to inspire public confidence. The six principles form a magnificent whole, each nourishing the other; without one, the others remain incomplete. When the CHP turns to these roots rather than seeking its direction and compass in artificial alliances outside or in the winds of the moment, the nation’s problems will automatically begin to be resolved within the framework of these principles. For these six principles are not merely the party’s institutional identity, but also the very bedrock of this state and society.

​When we go to the market or examine the cries of distress on digital platforms, there is a single reality that is causing the public great distress: the fire in their wallets and kitchens. When we consider a local grocer who opens his shop in the morning only to find the price of goods from the wholesaler changing every week, or a farmer who cannot afford diesel or fertiliser and has turned his back on his land because his hard work goes unrewarded, it becomes abundantly clear that the public expects concrete solutions from the CHP, not flowery rhetoric. The CHP’s claims in public squares and social media visuals that “We stand with the workers, pensioners and shopkeepers” are akin to a doctor visiting a suffering patient and merely saying “I understand you, you’re in a lot of pain” without prescribing any medication. This is precisely the focus of the harshest criticism on social media: the patient needs medicine to cure their illness, not mere consolation; yet, rather than announcing concrete macroeconomic programmes, party officials mostly content themselves with an abstract language of opposition, continuing to project an image focused on internal squabbles.

​Undoubtedly, acknowledging a historical truth is a duty of impartial analysis. Since 1950, the CHP has rarely held power alone; the country has been governed for many years by centre-right cadres. Therefore, it would be a gross injustice to view a party that has not held power for decades as the sole culprit for the chronic structural problems faced by the working class, small traders and the rural population, for the near collapse of agriculture, or for a certain aspect of social decay.

However, the main criticism directed at the CHP by the public, and particularly by the younger generation, is not that it—or any other party—created the current problems. The real criticism is why, in the face of this deep wreckage, economic collapse and crisis created by the current right-wing government, the CHP has still failed to produce an unambiguous, clear and reassuring mass alternative. The public is questioning why a party that has been out of power for so many years, even in the face of this historic opportunity for power, is still engaged in internal ‘power struggles and infighting’, has become factionalised, and has failed to fully project that steely resolve needed to put out the fire in the kitchen onto the electoral stage. Criticisms of the elitist language on social media are another matter entirely; the public wants to hear from the CHP leadership, explained clearly and sincerely—as a master would instruct an apprentice—how the fuel tank of a tractor in the fields will be filled, or how a factory worker’s trade union rights will be protected.

​It is precisely at this point that what the CHP must do from this moment onwards is of vital importance. The party must rise to its feet, drawing on the strength of its past great successes, and demonstrate the resolve to translate its vision into concrete action without delay. First and foremost, it must set aside all internal ‘power struggles’ and factional disputes, proving to the public that it possesses a unified voice and an institutional identity as disciplined as steel. The most radical and uncompromising step must be taken in the field of national security; the CHP must declare—not through rhetoric, but through its actions and political stance—that it will under no circumstances align itself with the separatist terrorist organisation or any of its parliamentary extensions, and that it maintains a complete and absolute distance from them. Thirdly, it must abandon the abstract language of opposition and present rational, planned and production-based development programmes that explain exactly how it will reduce the cost of fertiliser and diesel for the farmer in the field, how it will ease the tax burden on the shopkeeper, and how it will ensure the factory worker receives the full value of their labour. Finally, it must ensure that merit and justice are no longer mere promises, but must explain to the public, through transparent projects, how it will end favouritism in the public sector once in power.

In conclusion, although the CHP may appear to have a fresh new look, it has not yet fully established a clear structure capable of putting out the fire in the kitchens of small business owners, workers and farmers, nor of instilling confidence in them. It is clear that the primary culprits for driving the country into this socio-economic impasse are the long-standing right-wing governments; however, for the CHP to present the public with that strong, clear, productive and Atatürkist vision capable of clearing up this wreckage, it must now completely put an end to the internal ideological struggle and the uncertainty regarding its future. Without separating any of the six principles from one another, by blending this glorious historical legacy with the realities of the digital age and the streets, and without compromising on national sensitivities, the party must turn its focus entirely towards the people’s livelihood and production; this is the most indispensable step it must take from this moment onwards to become a genuine alternative to power.

​Note:​

This article has not been written with the aim of creating a sterile political debate or exploiting the situation for personal gain. My intention is to evaluate a long-established political party, which is one of the cornerstones of our country, entirely from my own perspective and without any affiliation to any political party. ​The Republican People’s Party is an undeniable reality of this country, and if an alternative to the current administration is to be formed, it is an indispensable party on the Atatürkist and nationalist path, even if it cannot secure a majority on its own. You may be angry with the CHP, or criticise this party out of ideological fixation; however, you cannot ignore either its historical legacy or the existence of the millions who follow it.