Atatürk's name is there, but his spirit is missing

It is extremely easy to establish a new party in Turkey.

You can resolve the matter with a petition submitted to the Ministry of Interior.

What is truly difficult is to present a genuinely strong political understanding.

The political line that took shape within the CHP during the Kılıçdaroğlu era seems to have moved to a new address today under the name "New Party".

Only the sign has changed.

The political logic you encounter when you read the program is largely the same.

For this reason, the New Party's program is not just a roadmap for a new political movement; it is also, in a sense, a manifesto of the ideological transformation the CHP has undergone in recent years.

The most striking aspect of the program is the intellectual tension it carries within itself.

On one side, Atatürk...

On the other, clauses that can by no means be reconciled with the understanding of the state that Atatürk founded.

The real issue that needs to be discussed begins exactly here.

In the introduction of the program, strong references are made to Atatürk, the founding philosophy of the Republic, the Six Arrows, and national sovereignty. Anyone reading the first few pages might think they are facing a political text based on the fundamental values of the Republic.

However, as you progress, the language used changes.

This time, we are met with a new terminology leaning on "equal citizenship," "democratic solution to the Kurdish issue," "strengthening local administration," the European Charter of Local Self-Government, and identity politics.

The problem is not just the use of these concepts.

The problem is how these concepts establish a relationship with the founding language of the Republic.

We know that the true identity of a political program emerges more from the concepts preferred within the text than from what is written in its preface.

In such texts, words are not chosen by coincidence; they write them by splitting hairs!

Every concept carries a political approach behind it.

Considering that Turkey has been fighting against ethnic-based terrorism for nearly half a century, what does it mean to use the terminology of the terrorist organization directly in topics concerning the fundamental structure of the state, and whose mill does it bring water to?

This is where the rubber meets the road.

On one hand, there is an emphasis on the unitary state and the Republic, while on the other, space is given to PKK jargon and concepts that imperialism is trying to push upon us.

Let us write it clearly.

The founding philosophy of the Republic was not built on making ethnic identities the founding axis of politics.

On the contrary, it aimed to bring people from different origins together within a common understanding of nationhood.

Article 10 of the Constitution already clearly decrees that all citizens are equal before the law without discrimination based on language, race, religion, sect, or similar reasons.

In that case, why was it deemed necessary to specifically highlight the concept of "equal citizenship" in the program?

Does this expression only emphasize equality before the law, or does it propose a new political approach beyond the existing constitutional framework?

For instance, is a separate and privileged status being requested for Kurds?

Last week, I wrote for Özgür Özel that “It is much easier after getting rid of the CHP's ideological baggage... They can consort with Kurdish nationalists, they can sing tunes to the terrorist leader Öcalan without hesitation, they can comfortably kiss and cuddle with Islamists.”

I received much more reaction than I expected.

Some called me a "butlancı" (a derogatory term), some accused me of trolling, and those who could not manage to debate in a civilized manner resorted to insults.

Now, I wonder if those who cursed and swore at me that day have repented after reading these clauses in the New Party's program, written with the mouth of a terrorist organization and imperialist jargon?  I wonder if they have repented?

Let us not make the matter personal; let us continue.

The New Party program standing before us today moves the discussion to a political ground.

Because this text is a reproduction of the political language defended within the CHP in recent years under a different sign.

The cadres of the New Party did not start politics today either.

A significant portion of these names served in the decision-making mechanisms of the CHP during the Kılıçdaroğlu era; they took responsibility for the formation of the policy pursued.

Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate the program they have presented today as completely independent of that period.

In the coming days, we will have plenty of opportunities to learn what is at the back of their minds.

We will wait and see!

But let us not pass without underlining this. Perhaps the most striking point here is the need they feel for Atatürk.

When they seek political legitimacy...

When they want to regain the trust of society...

The first name they turn to is once again Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

Yet, Atatürk is not a symbolic safe harbor to be remembered only in difficult times.

It is easy to write his name into a program.

What is difficult is to make his understanding of the state dominate the entire program.

This is also the fundamental test facing the New Party today.

Atatürk is present in the introduction of the program.

But what about the backbone of the program?

If the founding philosophy of the Republic is truly accepted as the primary reference, one would expect a political language to be established that leaves no room for even the slightest hesitation regarding the unitary structure of the state, the concept of a common nation, and the founding principles.

The sincerity of the New Party will not be measured by how many times it mentions Atatürk's name, but by the extent to which the state philosophy he represents guides the program.

Let us conclude our article by saying that it is not the prefaces of parties that determine their true character, but their backbones.