The ‘stain on the milk’ and the ‘melon’s backside’ issue…

Özgür Özel was in no position to apply a melon test in politics. It was certainly impossible for him to sniff Cemil Tugay’s backside to figure out whether he would switch to the AKP!

But that is what he says.

Well, what was he saying when he nominated that same Cemil Tugay for Mayor of İzmir Metropolitan Municipality in 2024?

“There is a stain on the milk, but not on him!”

What more could he say?

“Hardworking, honest, brave, patriotic, a good manager, a closer…”

He had known no bounds in his praise while describing Cemil Tugay, declaring him his political companion.

Now, that companion has switched to the AKP. There was no stain on the milk, but he saw no harm in handing over the will of the voters to the ruling party and pinning the AKP badge on his lapel!

The following question comes to mind:

Özgür Özel may not be able to know which party his candidate will switch to in the future.

But, does a party leader who claims to know a politician so closely and praises them as if vouching for their character feel no responsibility when that politician crosses over to the opposing side?

There is not just a mayoral transfer here that tramples on political ethics.

What must absolutely be discussed and debated here is Özgür Özel’s political foresight, his candidate selection method, and his responsibility toward the voters.

This is also a test of the trust placed in names presented as the “strongest candidate,” the mechanism that determines them, and the political mind behind this mechanism.

Özgür Özel has failed this test miserably. Whether there was a stain on the milk or not, there is no point in debating it after this point.

The truly grave part of the matter is that this is not the first instance.

After the March 31, 2024 elections, mayors elected from the CHP began to act like the Kuvâ-yı Seyyâre (Mobile Forces), so to speak.

Aydın Metropolitan Mayor Özlem Çerçioğlu joined the AKP in August 2025. Along with her, the mayors of Aydın’s Söke, Yenipazar, and Sultanhisar districts packed up and left.

Afyonkarahisar Mayor Burcu Köksal also gathered her belongings and headed for the AKP in May 2026.

Following that, a chain of transfers emerged, stretching from Ankara to Istanbul, and from İzmir to various districts of Anatolia.

Keçiören Mayor Mesut Özarslan, Tuzla Mayor Eren Ali Bingöl, Çekmeköy Mayor Orhan Çerkez, Onur Emrah Yıldız from İzmir’s Çiğli district, and Saniye Bora Fıçı from Foça are some of these names…

And finally, İzmir Metropolitan Mayor Cemil Tugay!

In short, since the 2024 local elections, 36 mayors elected from the CHP have, in one way or another, thrown themselves into the arms of the ruling party.

This number is a balance sheet regarding the individual party changes of mayors. Municipalities whose administration changed hands as a result of arrests and the election of acting mayors are a separate topic.

Now let us ask; one mayor leaves, two mayors leave; but if dozens of elected mayors are heading toward the same party, is it sufficient to explain this solely with personal preferences?

Özgür Özel’s remark, “It’s not a melon that I can sniff its backside,” is precisely why it does not explain the issue.

On the contrary, it makes the responsibility more visible.

Because he himself explained that Cemil Tugay was chosen because he was a few points ahead in the polls among the five names nominated in İzmir. An assessment based on the probability of winning the election may have been made. However, winning an election and securing the political understanding that will represent the voters’ ballots are not the same thing.

The calculation made for the candidate to win the election may have held up; but the courage and will of the elected person to protect their political line…

How will Özgür Özel emerge from this test? Will he point to the polls again in the next election? Will he close the debate again by saying “the strongest candidate”?

İzmir deputy Yüksel Taşkın said, “We made mistakes with some candidates, some of our candidates were very good. There must be self-criticism for this.”

The confession is that clear.

But self-criticism is not done by admitting that wrong candidates were chosen and closing the file.

Yüksel Taşkın’s political past is also a part of this debate.

He was a former writer for the newspaper Taraf. Everyone knows that this newspaper was the most useful apparatus for the operation carried out to dynamite the foundations of the Republic of Turkey.

The disgusting conspiracies that the Taraf newspaper plotted against the country’s patriots during the Ergenekon and Balyoz frame-ups have not yet been forgotten.

It is not difficult to guess based on what criteria those in charge at the time determined the names who would write for this operation apparatus. Of course, they were chosen from among those who were unconditionally hostile to the Republic of Turkey, the founding values of the Republic, and Atatürk’s principles.

Furthermore, Yüksel Taşkın was capable of making statements so reckless that he could say Kemalism is racism.

Despite this, they gave him the first spot in İzmir to become a deputy. Özgür Özel did not stop there; he placed him among the founders of the New Party.

Well, can we view all these choices merely as simple human errors?

Or are these parts of a more comprehensive strategy that changes the identity, political orientation, and the relationship the CHP/New Party has established with the voter?

If even Taşkın himself says that self-criticism is needed regarding candidate choices, it can no longer be dismissed by talking about a few unfortunate selections. The CHP’s political identity, staff choices, and the relationship it has established with the voter must be addressed together.

Because these choices do not remain merely as decisions made by the party management within itself. The citizens who make their choice among the candidates presented to them experience the consequences.

Was the voter the true subject of the candidate determination process?

While alternatives were narrowed down, other names were sidelined, and a specific name was pointed out to the voter as the “strongest candidate,” how much of a say did they have?

It is certainly easy to remember the voter’s will today when that name switches to another party. However, the extent to which that will was taken into account during the candidate determination stage must also be debated with the same clarity.

In short, the political responsibility for Cemil Tugay’s switch to the AKP belongs primarily to him. A mayor elected with CHP votes joining another party is a serious political choice that needs to be explained to the voters. However, the responsibility of those who nominated him cannot be eliminated by citing Cemil Tugay’s decision as a justification.

This picture must be considered together with all the political debates the CHP has experienced after 2024. Every decision made—from the timing of the early election demand to the protest and boycott strategy that would dampen social anger, from the choice to participate in the treason commission in Parliament to the political alliance calculations made with Kurdish nationalists—can be debated separately.

However, at the center of it all is the widening chasm between the party management’s choices and the voters’ expectations.

A management can make a mistake.

But if similar results appear again and again, the voter must now question not only the wrong decisions but also the mindset that produces those decisions, and with that, we conclude our article.