The broken glass of the glass palace

The glass of the glass palace has shattered, and the perception of invincibility has crumbled to dust. For years, an image of the 'Reis' (Chief) was carefully constructed—someone who knows everything, decides everything, is infallible, and is invincible. TV series depicting our glorious ancestors, such as Diriliş Ertuğrul, Kuruluş Osman, Payitaht Abdülhamid, Alparslan: Büyük Selçuklu, Kudüs’ün Fatihi Selahaddin Eyyubi, and Mehmed: Fetihler Sultanı, were, in reality, screen-based applications of a project designed to implant the perception of a leader whose every command must be obeyed into the subconscious of society.

The damage sustained on March 31 to the image of the 'sole leader/sole chief,' which was injected through the state budget, state and pro-government communication tools, and written and visual media, seems very difficult to repair. The bill for transforming the Presidency—which should be neutral and remain neutral, serving as the insurance of state institutionalism—into a 'Reis' system is now before them. Those responsible for the liquidation of the state's checks and balances, the overturning of the hierarchy that keeps the state standing, and the demotion of Turkey from the league of rule-of-law states are in a state of bewilderment.

The results, which no one expected or predicted, are not so much a success of the opposition parties as they are the anger of a public condemned to deprivation and poverty, reflected at the ballot box. The March 31 local elections should not be read as a race between the ruling party and the opposition, but as an arm-wrestling match between the 'Reis' order and the people. Let me repeat it once more: the emerging picture should be evaluated as an objection to despotic imposition and a political/sociological rejection of an autocratic injection that does not align with the founding philosophy of the Republic.

The heavy defeat suffered by the ruling party shows that the politics shaped around the 'Reis/leader' model, rather than party institutionalism, has crumbled to dust. The public will not be convinced by the rhetoric of, “March 31 was a local election; there is still a long time until the general elections. Let’s continue as if nothing happened.” What needs to be done is to begin repairing the destruction they have wrought on political and social life, which was conditioned on conformity to the 'Reis' rather than conformity to the law. Returning to the Constitutional order that existed before the coup against law and democracy—which they justify with demagoguery about being anti-coup—is difficult for the 'Reis,' but an unavoidable necessity for Turkey!

In this process, we would like to remind CHP executives: it would be extremely misleading for them to interpret the public's reaction to the partisan presidential system, the despotic ego, and corruption as an endorsement of the change and transformation within the CHP. The Turkish people see the CHP as the political legacy of the pioneering cadres of the liberation and founding, led by Atatürk, and as the political insurance of the regime. It should not be overlooked that fantasies of a New Opening / New Constitution, whose footsteps are beginning to be heard, and the fact that ethnic affiliations and ethnic references are being voiced at the highest levels of the party instead of the common denominator of the Turkish Nation, will turn local election success into general election failure.

The March 31 Manifesto, which the public delivered to the partisan presidential regime that fights with opposition parties, must be read correctly. It is clear that the regime of the fusion of powers, where the legislature is rendered ineffective, the Grand National Assembly is almost sidelined, and the judiciary—upon which the shadow of the executive has fallen—is discredited, cannot be sustained as easily as before.

The country must meet on the common ground of democracy and the rule of law before it is further eroded by a personal ego that has replaced institutionalism, by a lack of knowledge and experience that has replaced the collective memory of the state, and by an understanding that is at odds with the founding equation of the state/regime of October 29, 1923.