Adnan Yılmaz writes... The 50+1 reality and the CHP: Not missing the real agenda

THE CHP IS THE HISTORICAL MEMORY OF THE REPUBLIC AND MODERNIZATION

The CHP, founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk on September 9, 1923, is Turkey's oldest political party. By leading the founding process of the Republic of Turkey and ensuring the transition to a multi-party system, it is recognized not only in Turkish political history but also as one of the world's most deeply rooted founding movements in a broad field encompassing the "National Struggle," "nation-state building," and "Republican revolutions."

Born from the cadres who, in the historical process, did not accept a mandate against imperialist sovereign powers but drew their swords to resist; who led the "national uprising" to victory and founded the state, this has transformed the CHP from being merely a political party into the "historical memory of the Republic and modernization." This structure, which serves as a social safety net as much as it has a political dimension, is based on a very strong root referred to in sociology as a "founding institutional identity."

That is precisely why, despite the drifts and wrong policies experienced from time to time today, the fact that broad segments—whether they are CHP members or not—turn their eyes to this structure in every moment of crisis, and the sustainability of its voter support, are largely due to these roots.

WHAT IS THE REAL AGENDA?

However, the discussions currently taking place within the main opposition are, contrary to this deep-rooted history, shaped more around individuals than around differences in ideas and programs. Yet, the power of political parties comes not from loyalty to specific names, but from their capacity to bring society together around common goals.

A significant portion of today's discussions is focused on divisions fueled by factionalism among parties and by ruling circles, rather than on the future of Turkey. This situation causes the real agenda to remain in the background.

INTERNAL PARTY STRUGGLE OR COMMON GOAL?

There is another reality that must be questioned here: the main opposition's surrender to cheap, cheerleader-style rhetoric instead of highlighting its qualified human resources and political intellect in the face of operational maneuvers.

Ultimately, the internal party struggle has taken precedence over the main objective; in the process of "neutralizing through division," which is potentially targeted with "absolute nullity," a negative test has been given that reveals how fragile the internal structure can become.

Yet the issue is not who is more powerful within the party as we head toward the Presidential election that will determine the country's fate; it is which approach and which candidate aligning with that approach finds real resonance in society. The only ground on which the race is held, whether accepted or not, is the "Presidential Government System" ground.

If there is a strong trend forming in society, ignoring it or trying to steer it in another direction often does not yield the expected result.

VOTERS ARE NOT THE PROPERTY OF POLITICAL ACTORS

Political actors often tend to see their own influence as greater than it is. However, voter behavior can be shaped independently of internal party balances and political calculations.

Those who are polarizing around different names today should not assume that they can easily direct a strong social trend that may emerge tomorrow toward another candidate of their own choosing.

For example, if a strong social response has formed around a specific candidate—as seen in the example of "Mansur Yavaş" with support extending from right to left within the CHP base, among general opposition voters, and even among a segment of the ruling party's voters—the fact that groups currently divided point to a different candidate tomorrow does not mean that this support will be transferred to that candidate to the same extent.

The fact that those who are divided today may be forced to unite around the same Presidential candidate tomorrow—even if not in the first round, then in the second—and that they might struggle to control even their own base despite this, is being ignored.

Because while political actors represent voters, voters are not the property of political actors. The will of the base and the preferences of the cadres do not always move in the same direction. Our recent political history is full of countless examples of this. More importantly, it is known to everyone that there are examples of the same voter preferences in Turkey changing direction pragmatically even within short time intervals.

50+1: MORE THAN A PARTY RACE

The Presidential election is not an ordinary internal party race. The "50+1 percent" system necessitates candidates and policies that can garner the support of not just parties, but broad segments of society. Therefore, the issue is not just about becoming the power within the party; it carries a strategic quality to the extent that it will determine the country's form of government and its future.

If the divisions being experienced were caused by ideological differences or distinct political preference differences between candidates, this could be evaluated as a natural result of democratic politics. However, the picture seen today is not that.

The existence of multi-faceted operational pressures on the CHP is known to the public. The "absolute nullity" discussions that have recently come to the agenda also carry the risk of fueling a de facto fragmented opposition picture as we head toward the Presidential election.

Despite this, the main opposition's focus on mutual personal accusations and internal party settling of scores instead of centering the "50+1 percent" reality is fanning the sparks thrown by certain circles, playing right into the hands of the "political engineering" calculations they face.

THE REAL QUESTION

It is understood that the ability to read the voter's real expectations correctly by going beyond internal party polarization has been sacrificed to internal party infighting.

Divided groups may change their own positions; however, they cannot change the voter's preferences with the same ease.

THE FUTURE OF THE REPUBLIC IS A BIGGER ISSUE THAN THE INDIVIDUAL CALCULATIONS OF POLITICAL ACTORS

Therefore, the real question is not which name supports whom; it is what society wants and how accurately this will can be read.

The success of politics is determined here: not in trying to shape society with subjective desires, but in reading the direction in which society is heading correctly and creating a common path forward based on that orientation.

The effort of many deputies, mayors, and candidate hopefuls who expect something from one of the polarizations that have diverged internally for one reason or another to find a place for themselves unfortunately brings with it a "holier-than-thou" mentality and sharp approaches that burn all bridges.

We hope that this search for personal advancement and the divisive landscape will be replaced by a consciousness of historical and social responsibility as soon as possible.

Because the future of the Republic is an issue too large to fit into any political actor's individual calculation. What will determine the elections is not internal party calculations, but the will of the nation.

Adnan Yılmaz