Buket Müftüoğlu writes: The problem is not just about those who leave

Here are the words of CHP Honorary Board Member Buket Müftüoğlu:
 

Republican People's Party Chairman Mr. Özgür Özel stated in his remarks to Fatih Altaylı that his biggest mistake across Turkey was re-nominating Lütfü Savaş for the Hatay Metropolitan Municipality Mayoralty.

Former Hatay Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Mr. Lütfü Savaş, who took the events of the 38th Ordinary Congress of the Republican People's Party to a legal ground, responded without wasting any time:

“Did he catch me with a towel, did he catch me while I was switching to the AK Party, or did he catch me while I was engaging in zoning rent? If they hadn't nominated me, I would have been an independent candidate anyway.”

These words from Lütfü Savaş show that the debate currently taking place within the Republican People's Party is actually much bigger than individuals.

The issue is not just about a mayor, a candidate, or elected officials who are switching to other political parties today.

The issue is the principled fracture, the erosion of meritocracy, and the political ethics problem that has emerged as an inevitable result of these, which has been experienced within the Republican People's Party over the years.

Choices where the concern for winning elections has occasionally taken precedence over party principles did not, of course, begin in 2010. Examples of this were also seen during the era of Mr. Deniz Baykal.

However, with Mr. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu beginning to lead the Republican People's Party in 2010, this approach, which was previously seen periodically, gradually turned into a systematic management style.

As the distance between the party and its founding values widened, its ideological boundaries became blurred. Winning elections gradually became the justification for almost every political choice.

The mindset of “as long as we win the election” eventually turned into the mindset of “all means are permissible to win the election.”

The true principled fracture of the Republican People's Party occurred right here.

Names from different political traditions were brought into the staff without sufficiently checking whether they had adopted the political culture of the Republican People's Party. People who had labored for years in party organizations, who carried institutional memory, and who had political experience were bypassed by names with extremely limited ties to the party.

Loyalty gradually replaced the concept of merit.

Instead of strong political characters who had political accumulation, who could object to the management when necessary, and who could make their own decisions; cadres who would not conflict with the management's preferences, who would implement what was told, and who could be easily managed were preferred.

Even society's highly justified demands for rejuvenation and female representation began to be used from time to time as if they were a measure of merit.

Youth is, of course, the future of politics.

Stronger representation of women in politics is indispensable for democratic life.

I have defended this for years as a female politician.

However, being young or being a woman is not merit in itself. Being new is not change on its own.

Being famous is not enough at all.

Bringing people who do not have sufficient political and managerial experience to the head of municipalities and giant public organizations that manage billions of liras just because they are young, women, or famous is to put them under a responsibility they cannot carry.

Assuming that individuals have a clean past, managing a municipality is not a job that can be done only with good intentions.

One must know the budget. One must know public administration. One must know tender processes and municipal legislation. One must have the experience to manage thousands of employees, dozens of subsidiaries, and billions of liras in public resources, as well as experience with the dynamics of the organization and political acumen.

A manager lacking these can quickly become dependent on the bureaucrats, consultants, interest groups, contractors, and builders around them. A well-intentioned but inexperienced manager can be easily manipulated by malicious and experienced interest groups.

This is exactly why merit exists.

Merit is knowledge, experience, political character, public responsibility, management ability, and the courage to say “no” even to the political will that brought one to that position when necessary.

This is one of the most important criteria that has eroded in the Republican People's Party over the years.

We cannot ignore this history while discussing the fact that some mayors elected from the CHP are switching to other political parties today.

Of course, there is a serious problem of representative ethics in switching to another political party while retaining the position obtained with the name, emblem, organization, and votes of a political party.

A mayor is not elected only on their own behalf. They come to that position with the program, history, organization of a political party, and the will of the people who went to the ballot box trusting that party.

For this reason, switching to another political party after being elected cannot be seen merely as a personal political choice.

However, the sole responsibility for these transfers does not lie with those who make the transfers.

There is also the responsibility of the management approach that made them candidates without raising them within the political culture of the Republican People's Party, put them before the voters without sufficiently valuing party affiliation, and evaluated the probability of winning the election ahead of political character and merit.

Moreover, another and perhaps the most severe aspect of the issue is the determining power of political ethics over party affiliation.

If you wear down, erode, and eventually make the moral integrity of a political party debatable over the years, you do not only lose your credibility in the public eye.

You also damage the spiritual bond that the party's own cadres, elected officials, and members have established with the party.

This is particularly important for the Republican People's Party.

Because one of the greatest pillars of the opposition carried out against the government for years was not just proposing a different economic policy, a different foreign policy, or a different management model.

At the root of the commitment that a significant portion of CHP voters felt for their own party was also this belief:

"We are honest. We do not touch public property. We do not make politics a tool for personal enrichment. We maintain our moral superiority."

This is an extremely great power for a political party in opposition.

It is sometimes even more valuable than the vote percentage at the ballot box.

Because the greatest capital the opposition has against the government's state resources, economic power, and political tools is the trust the society has in it.

If you erode this trust by turning a blind eye to ethical problems within yourself, normalizing lack of merit, putting personal relationships ahead of institutional measures, and protecting people who have serious moral debates about them with political calculations; after a while, you weaken not only the trust the voter has in you, but also the moral responsibility your own cadres feel towards the party.

This is where the real danger begins.

The political and moral wrongness of the behavior of an elected official who switches to another party is clear.

For me, it is unacceptable for them to carry the representative authority given to them by a party's voters to another political structure while retaining their position.

However, when the moral standards within the party itself erode, the person making the transfer can begin to produce a very dangerous justification in their own conscience:

“What moral integrity am I betraying?” They begin to ask themselves this question inwardly.

This question, of course, does not justify the transfer.

It never makes an unethical political transfer legitimate.

But it creates a psychological and political ground that allows the person making the transfer to lighten, trivialize, and even legitimize their own behavior in their conscience.

The person who changes parties can begin to diminish their own moral violation by comparing it with the ethical erosion within the political structure they left behind.

When the personal or family irregularities they aim to benefit from are added to this, the way for betrayal is opened.

This is one of the most severe consequences of a political party losing its own moral ground.

What truly keeps them together is a common sense of political ethics.

A person believes that their party has certain boundaries.

They know that some things cannot be done under that roof.

They trust that if it is done, the price will be paid.

When this trust disappears, institutional affiliation also begins to dissolve.

On the other side, we cannot ignore the responsibility of the ruling party.

The political wear and tear caused by being in power for many years and the pressure created by the losses experienced, especially in local elections, should not turn into a desire to weaken the main opposition party by using every one of its vulnerabilities.

Exposing the mistakes of the opposition is the nature of politics. Political competition is also a requirement of democracy.

However, trying to produce political results by exploiting the personal weaknesses, private lives, or legal or political vulnerabilities of elected people is not democratic competition.

This is below-the-belt politics.

And below-the-belt politics is not fair.

Just as it is wrong for the government to try to dismantle its opponent by using its internal weaknesses instead of defeating it at the ballot box, it is also a serious political responsibility for Republican People's Party administrations to have created a cadre and candidate order open to these interventions.

Because a cadre structure consisting of solid political characters, strong party affiliation, merit, and a common political ethic cannot be shaken so easily from the outside.

Explaining what is happening today only with the political moves of the government would be to make the Republican People's Party's own responsibility invisible.

Republican People's Party administrations, especially after 2010, must face the price of putting the desire to win elections ahead of party identity.

The consequences of blurring the party's ideological boundaries, replacing merit with loyalty, devaluing institutional memory, preferring easily manageable cadres instead of political experience, and transforming the Republican People's Party into a political structure that increasingly focuses only on winning elections are before us today.

A political party, of course, wants to win elections.

However, the moment winning an election takes precedence over the principles that constitute the reason for a political party's existence, one must correctly calculate the account between the positions won and the political identity lost.

The Republican People's Party has a history spanning over a century, a founding will, a political identity, and millions of voters standing behind this identity.

When the boundaries of this identity are constantly stretched for the sake of winning elections, one day it also becomes unclear which political thought the won positions belong to.

For this reason, the mayor transfers happening today are not just the political choices of a few people.

These are the results of the wrong cadre policy, the erosion of merit, the principled uncertainty, and the destruction that has occurred in political ethics, which have been pursued for years.

The elected officials who make the transfers have political and moral responsibility.

The ruling party has the responsibility for its effort to expand its political space by using the vulnerabilities of the main opposition.

But the responsibility of the management approach that made the Republican People's Party open to these interventions should be counted at the very beginning of the reasons.

And this responsibility cannot be thought of independently of the political will that has managed the party, especially after 2010.

Because the price of the wrong cadre choice is not paid only by the chairmen and party administrations who choose that cadre.

The real price is paid by the voter who goes to the ballot box and votes by trusting the history, principles, and emblem of the Republican People's Party.

What needs to be done today is to face the political understanding that made these names representatives of the Republican People's Party, instead of getting angry at those who leave.

Because the problem is not only with those who leave.

The problem is with the understanding that has distanced the Republican People's Party from its principles, merit criteria, and the understanding of political ethics that has kept it standing for over a century, and transformed it into a ground where all of this can happen.

The most important element that the Republican People's Party needs to raise again is its historical and institutional identity.

What needs to be rebuilt is political ethics along with its principles and the voter's trust in the Republican People's Party.

 

Buket Müftüoğlu

CHP Honorary Board Member