Kemalists whose address has been stolen

In recent days, criticism directed at the CHP from the Kemalist segment, as well as from center-right, centrist, and leftist voters with an anti-imperialist stance, has been increasing. At the heart of this criticism is the fact that the CHP, in an attempt to appease Kurdish voters, is using the same tone regarding the "Kurdish Question" and equal citizenship as the PKK and the DEM Party.

The definition of the Kurdish Question held by the PKK, the DEM Party, and the ruling front that supported the "opening process" targets the Treaty of Lausanne. In the commission for this opening, the two fundamental pillars of the Republic of Turkey—the nation-state and the secular state structure—are being targeted.

The root causes of the Kurdish question are the feudal structures, land ownership, and religious order organizations remaining from the Middle Ages. By ignoring these issues, stripping them of their class context, and paving the way for those who question Lausanne, the CHP is causing disappointment among a large mass of people who support a secular and unitary state.

Özgür Özel tells those who criticize the CHP, "Don't try to set the agenda." Of course, we are not setting the agenda; of course, the CHP will determine its own policies. However, at a time when the nation-state and the secular state are under attack, what was expected from a party claiming to be the continuation of the founding party was to uphold the principles of the Republic. The Republic of Turkey needed the CHP. But despite a renewal in the CHP's captain's quarters, there is no renewal in the ship's course. The policy of appeasing political Islamists, separatist Kurds, and neoliberal thought continues. If you both continue these policies and say "Don't try to set the agenda" to critics, you lose the right to ask for votes from those who feel forced to vote for the CHP.

WHAT DO THE 40 PERCENT UNDECIDED TELL US?

I am coming to this point. Despite such deterioration in income distribution, in polls conducted, the CHP is only about two points ahead of the AKP. However, in research conducted with the question of "who will solve Turkey's problems," the situation is a complete disaster.

According to the research published by the ASAL research company about two months ago, who will solve Turkey's problems? The answers are as follows:

36 percent, no political party... (40.2 percent a year ago)

23.2 percent, AKP... (20 percent a year ago)

19.6 percent, CHP... (18.3 percent a year ago)

These rates actually show the votes of the undecided as well. But what is more dire is this: The voter trusts the AKP, which is the source of the problems, more than the CHP in solving the problems.

GO SELL ICE CREAM

We use a very common sentence in economics. "You cannot please everyone with the economic decisions made. Someone will definitely be harmed by that decision. For example, if you raise interest rates, one segment will be pleased and one segment will be harmed. Therefore, if you want to please everyone, go sell ice cream."

This quote belongs to Apple founder Steve Jobs. It was said regarding leadership and pleasing people. The original is, "If you want to make everyone happy, don't be a leader. Sell ice cream."

The translation into Turkish is, "If you want to make everyone happy, don't be a leader. Go sell ice cream."

In economics, someone pays the "bitter prescription"; in politics, the price of defending a line is to take a stand against those who oppose that line.

Leadership is about maintaining a stance by adhering to certain principles. The stance expected from the CHP is, as they claim themselves, the nationalist (ulusalcı) and public-oriented stance based on the founding philosophy of the republic as the founding party, on Atatürk's Principles and Revolutions, and on Atatürk's science-prioritizing, fully independent, anti-imperialist, secular, populist, free individuals and the equality of citizens.

Ice cream selling is trying to look cute to secular and nation-state opposing political Islamists and separatist Kurds at the same time, which is spineless politics.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO LOOK CUTE TO EVERYONE AT THE SAME TIME?

There are examples in the past where looking cute to everyone at the same time was successful. This is called the "Big Tent Strategy" in politics. The concept of "Big Tent" or "Catch-all Party" was used by German political scientist Otto Kirchheimer for parties that aim to soften ideological sharpness and harvest votes from every segment of society.

Kirchheimer observed the welfare states rising in Europe after the Second World War, starting from 1954, and the voter behaviors that developed accordingly, and introduced this concept in 1966.

With the rise of the post-war welfare state, class sharpness had begun to decrease. Voters were not voting for parties based on religion, class, or ideological affiliations, but based on the criterion of who provides better service.

In such cases, ideological discourse is cast aside, and the leader is brought to the forefront. The influence of party members on policy determination decreases. Instead of a specific segment, relationships are established with different power centers of society (business world, unions, civil society) at the same time.

After introducing the Big Tent Strategy, Kirchheimer also gives this warning: "This strategy can bring success. But it has a price. This price is the disappearance of the opposition. If all parties pile into the center and start to resemble each other, the voter cannot find a real alternative."

If the CHP's strategy is the Big Tent Strategy that Kirchheimer introduced in 1966, I suggest they reconsider it.

We are not talking about welfare states recreated in a geography destroyed after the war, as in 1950s Europe. The Big Tent Strategy, which brought together the four tendencies of Turgut Özal in the atmosphere created after the 1980 coup, achieved success in the conjuncture of that day. But afterwards, there was no party left called ANAP.

Today, neither the European atmosphere after the 1954s nor the Turkish atmosphere after the coup in the 1980s exists. As a result of the policies carried out for 24 years, society is divided in two like a watermelon. We are talking about a very sharp separation between supporters of the secular and nation-state and supporters of the Federated Islamic State. Regardless of ethnic structure and belief, we are trying to draw attention to the great contradiction between a "secular social and political structure based on the equality of citizens" and a "social and political structure based on ethnic and religious identities."

If the main opposition party insists on pleasing the divisive centers, the anti-secular political Islamists, and the Kemalist base all at the same time, there is no choice left but to suggest they follow Steve Jobs' advice: Let them go and sell ice cream. They can even go one step further and distribute plenty of free chocolate ice cream with the municipal resources they have.

KEMALISTS WHOSE ADDRESS HAS BEEN STOLEN

In politics, the undecided are defined as indifferent or apolitical people. In Turkey, this rate was at the level of 10 percent. The 40 percent who believe that no one can solve Turkey's problems is not actually a voter indecision. It is a reaction that emerged because the current political structure does not offer hope. There have always been undecided people in Turkey, but 40 percent is a major reaction. It is necessary to analyze well the problem behind the 40 percent voter base not turning to the opposition despite the spread of poverty in the economy and the disappearance of the sense of justice.

The CHP was a party founded by Atatürk. It was closed in 1980. It was re-established under the same name by Deniz Baykal in 1992. I don't know if this CHP and that CHP are the same. If you invite everyone to the "Big Tent," you also take away the address of those who use that tent as their permanent residence. The majority of the hopeless voters, around 40 percent, who say that no one can solve Turkey's problems, may be "Kemalists whose address has been stolen."

Perhaps a significant portion of this 40 percent of voters are actually the original homeowners who want to enter their house but see that the lock on the door has been changed.