Home > Current Affairs News > Erdoğan's chief advisor Mehmet Uçum disapproves of CHP's 'style of opposition', accuses them of being anti-democratic

Erdoğan's chief advisor Mehmet Uçum disapproves of CHP's 'style of opposition', accuses them of being anti-democratic

While investigations into corruption allegations against CHP-run municipalities remain on the agenda, Mehmet Uçum, Deputy Chairman of the Presidential Legal Policies Board, targeted the CHP leadership. Accusing the CHP of being anti-democratic, Uçum stated, "With this style of opposition, it is not possible to hold a legitimate position within the democratic system." In a post on his X account, Uçum called on the CHP to support the new process referred to as a 'Terror-Free Turkey' and the new constitution.

12punto

Mehmet Uçum, chief advisor to AKP Chairman and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has added a new entry to his 'Sunday writings'.

This time, Uçum's agenda focused on the CHP leadership's stance regarding the operations conducted against municipalities.

Targeting the CHP's style of opposition, Uçum stated, "Following the corruption and terrorism investigations into certain municipalities in Istanbul, the language and practice of CHP executives have drifted to a place entirely unrelated to democratic opposition."

Recalling the remarks made by CHP Chairman Özgür Özel regarding Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor Akın Gürlek, which led to an investigation being launched against him, Uçum described them as "disproportionate, crude, and threatening words," and said that "the CHP leadership has abandoned its position of democratic opposition."

Expressing his view that the CHP has abandoned the language of democratic criticism with this stance, Uçum noted the following:

"Today, a style that gives the impression of being intentionally chosen and which could be called a 'bully repertoire' in political communication has come to dominate the language of the CHP leadership. In fact, this style and tone are considered a fear of losing status and an avoidance of confrontation.

However, if the subject is democratic opposition, an opposition defined by a language of threats, insults, and the incitement and encouragement of illegality can never be accepted as democratic. Such a language produces crime and is certainly not the language of democratic politics.

Political experience shows that a destructive opposition language that exceeds the limits of criticism and engaging in opposition by committing crimes never finds a mass response in a democratic society. Democratic politics cannot be conducted with a style of opposition based on committing crimes, and one cannot become a serious government alternative in democratic elections.

Again, wanting change in positive law is one thing, and not recognizing positive law is something else entirely. These two cannot fit into the same sack. Those who do not recognize positive law are not seen as legitimate in the eyes of society when they demand rights stemming from the very law they oppose, nor are their demands for change taken into account. The CHP leadership gives the impression that it is either unaware of this simple reality or does not care about it.

On the other hand, of course, the democratic opposition's right to constructive criticism is indisputable. However, it is a reasonable demand that this be positive criticism and contribute to the democratic system.

For example, criticism aimed at the oversight of a public service program is positive and constructive criticism.

Or, an objection regarding the inaccuracy of a legislative act or an executive decision becomes a contributing criticism if it also includes a correct proposal.

Or, criticisms regarding the renewal of practices become progressive criticism if they carry a concrete approach regarding innovation.

Again, let's say a government decision regarding foreign policy is both supported and a perspective is offered to strengthen it; then, a solidarity-based criticism is in question.

Even criticism based solely on opposition, that is, purely negative criticism, is accepted as a requirement of democratic opposition as long as it does not go beyond the limits of the law.

While this is the truth, opposition conducted with a language of aggression, with statements that constitute crimes, by being provocative, and by targeting others has no democratic value. Such a style of opposition is anti-democratic. With this style of opposition, it is not possible to hold a legitimate position within the democratic system.

If they believe in democracy, the CHP's current representative areas must return to the language and practice of opposition within the limits of democracy and law as soon as possible.

Today is not the day to engage in politics based on personal agendas. Today is not the day to ignore corruption allegations. Today is not the day to set oneself against the law and the state.

Today is the day to unconditionally support the realization of a Terror-Free Turkey and to provide Turkey with a new constitution for the first time in its history, entirely through the will of the people, with the people's legitimate representatives, and with the approval of the people. The essential thing is for the CHP to fulfill the historical responsibility expected of it regarding a Terror-Free Turkey and a New Constitution."