Flash response from Özgür Özel to Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s remarks! ‘No one in this party has one…’

Republican People's Party (CHP) Chairman Özgür Özel will meet once again with AKP Chairman and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on June 9. In an interview with İpek Özbey from Sözcü, Özel spoke about the meeting as well as former chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's remarks about being "stabbed in the back."

Özel gave the following response to İpek Özbey's question, "What do you expect from the meeting with Erdoğan?";

"There is a constitution in force in Turkey. Whether we like it or not. If you do not comply with one article of this constitution, I do not comply with another, and someone else does not comply with a third, the state order will collapse. And if you, as the head of state, start to violate the constitution, you cannot expect people to be loyal to the constitution and respect the powers you derive from it. Therefore, my primary expectation is compliance with the constitution. This includes Gezi, Can Atalay's return to Parliament, the opening of Taksim, and compliance with the rulings of the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). All but one of the Constitutional Court members were appointed by Erdoğan. Despite this, there is a government madness that does not stop when the AYM says stop. This is not something that can happen."

Highlights from the interview are as follows;

"I EXPECT A DEVELOPMENT REGARDING KAVALA"

Do you expect a development regarding Osman Kavala?

I do. It is already written in UYAP. It says the file has been pulled to the Ministry of Justice. It is being examined in terms of reversal for the benefit of the law.

Will a result be obtained soon?

I both expect it and hope for it. This issue was on my agenda during my meetings with Mr. Erdoğan; I attach great importance to taking a step and taking action on this matter, both for Turkey's interests and for the families of the people involved in Gezi.

Let's come to your ‘normalization’ step... Let's elaborate a bit. What would you say to those who say, “One cannot normalize with the AKP”?

I wanted to divide this normalization issue into two. First, as someone involved in politics in Turkey, I think this is what is normal. The government and the main opposition not shaking hands at the ceremony at Anıtkabir. The government-opposition relationship, where they do not even offer good wishes to each other or to the voters and members of the other side during holidays, do not attend each other's funerals, and do not offer condolences to each other, does not belong to these lands. In the villages of Anatolia, those who are estranged make peace during holidays. Estrangements are forgotten at funerals. The absence of even the simplest human relations polarizes the country; I don't know who benefits from this polarization, but neither my party nor my voters benefit. Between 1977-80, Ecevit and Demirel did not shake hands, and a coup occurred at the end of three years. When you do not shake hands, coup plotters or other focus groups start rubbing their hands. We became the first party after March 31. With the responsibility of this, I called all parties during the holiday. I wanted to meet with Erdoğan. The reason for this was to take a step to save politics from this abnormal image, and it is not an easy step that I have taken.

Why?

The base is not ready for this. Relations have been very bad for 23 years. There are hundreds of mutual insult lawsuits filed. Many events that are still traumas within us are in our minds. In other words, many pains, from those we lost in Gezi to those we lost in the October 10 Train Station Massacre, were experienced during this period and are in our hearts. I understand the feelings of those who are not ready at the base, but there is a reality. The legitimacy and the power provided by the election success we achieved on March 31 are clear. These voters gave the authority to govern the country to Erdoğan in the last elections, whether we like it or not. My party will now manage municipalities that control 80 percent of the country's economy, and according to the constitution, there are two areas of power: central administration and local administrations. It is not the right thing for the owners of these two areas of power not to meet and negotiate with each other. This step was not easy, but I took it with courage.

I AM AGAINST POLITICS THAT LACKS SELF-CONFIDENCE

Some polling companies say that the support you received from your party has decreased slightly after taking that step. There were even reports claiming that this was discussed in your Central Executive Board (MYK).

That is not the case. For the first time in history, the CHP chairman's approval rating is higher than Erdoğan's. Society gave incredible credit to this. Of course, I respect all analyses, but there is a subject I am confident about. First, I know how to listen to the voice of the street; I know what the voter says, what the member says, what they expect, and where that feeling will evolve. This time last year, we were experiencing the first days of a major election defeat; I heard the voice of the street and said that a change needed to happen in the CHP and that we should go to the elections with this feeling. Many of my friends told me, “This move of yours is wrong. You are diving headfirst into an empty pool right now.” I said, “That pool will fill up before I fall, you don't see it,” and that is exactly what happened. There was an incredible emotional detachment on the street, and it was impossible for what was on the street not to affect the member, and for what was in the member not to affect the delegate.

How do you read the street right now?

The feeling on the street gives strength to the CHP. If the CHP does not read the 38 percent correctly and interprets it as the victory of the chairman or the victory of good candidates, we will return to 25 percent. However, in the Turkey alliance that gave us 38 percent of the vote right now, there are votes far beyond the CHP's core votes, even half as many again as the core votes. The feeling there is, “It's good that we voted, they didn't get spoiled, they didn't act arrogantly, they didn't get drunk on victory, and they are very careful.” This feeling ensures that the credit given to us continues. That is why the CHP is still the first party in all polls after a local election.

Actually, it is progressing a bit like the discussions of reconciliation, Mr. Özgür. It was said, “One cannot reconcile with them,” now it is said, “One cannot normalize with them.”

If 33 percent of the countless voters who voted for the CHP right after the election still say they would vote for the CHP if there were a parliamentary election on Sunday, it means this local election is evolving into something else. It is necessary to see that feeling well. Also, the AKP has declined by 1.6 percent in one month. The job the leader needs to do right now is to hear the voice of the street, read the feelings correctly, and convince and transform their mass. I see that this is possible. One of the most important elements of the struggle is negotiation. I met with 9 legal experts, some professors and some associate professors from law schools, at a legal policy advisory board meeting, and they told me this: In the past, when the subject of the constitution was opened, the CHP would say, “We are not in,” or when a proposal came, it would close the door and not negotiate, which gave legitimacy to the other side. It was said, “Nothing can be discussed with them, let us do what we know.” Now, when you both negotiate and explain why you cannot make a constitution during this period, your stance gains legitimacy. I see that the CHP's approach of “One cannot talk to them, one cannot negotiate with them” unfortunately serves no purpose other than keeping the 25 percent base. Let me also state this: Three-quarters of our base supports this, and one-quarter either does not support it or is undecided. My job is to convince them. If the process does not evolve into a positive place, then it will be re-evaluated. I am very much against politics that lacks self-confidence, Ms. İpek.

What do you mean by lack of self-confidence?

I mean the politics of “They will deceive us.” What kind of lack of self-confidence is this? Someone who does not have their own plan becomes part of someone else's plan. There is nothing as risky as not meeting and having it be known from the beginning what you will do. Because your opponents build their entire plan on this. It is known what they will do anyway. How a party will behave cannot be a fixed parameter. If they find that fixed parameter, they solve the equation. Politics is a matter of equations, and to solve the equation, some of the unknowns must be fixed. Negotiation is always necessary. Also, why should I leave such a comfort zone for my political opponents: They can meet with everyone, within the alliance or outside the alliance. I cannot meet with them. I am meeting with the MHP, and I will also meet with the New Welfare Party (Yeniden Refah). I will meet with all the parties we need to meet with. The CHP has a line, a path in politics. It is extremely self-confident, this is important. Also, in Turkey, Mr. Erdoğan's setting the agenda was seen by everyone as his greatest power. Looking at the last two months, can you say that Erdoğan sets the agenda alone in Turkey? This is the product of self-confident politics. Otherwise, let someone else set the agenda and you run after them; that is not something that will happen.

There are also those who say ‘It has drifted to the AKP line’…

They cannot say that. For example, no one can call me a ‘coup plotter’; I am the one who had the parliament opened on the night of the coup. My position in social cases, Ergenekon, Balyoz, and military espionage, is clear. I am diametrically opposed to it. No one can even say to me, ‘Did he drift to the AKP line?’ My entire struggle has been spent on this, but the seat I am in right now is a seat of responsibility, and I am not only negotiating with the AKP. For example, I have started to represent my party in the Presidency of the Party of European Socialists. I was elected vice president of the Socialist International. I have started to attend the general assemblies of major social democratic parties in Europe. I am in communication with all left-wing socialist leaders in the world. Last night, I brought together all the EU ambassadors at a dinner in honor of the EU ambassador whose term is ending and who will be leaving. There were twenty-four countries, twenty of them attended at the ambassador level. We had dinner for 3.5-4 hours, we had a Q&A. We made long assessments. For example, the German President visited the main opposition party in Turkey for the first time. I have met with the German Chancellor one-on-one three times since I was elected. The German President also invited me to his Turkey program. This is a new political line, a new way of doing politics. These should be seen as a whole. That is, it is not just meeting with Erdoğan. The Chinese ambassador invited me to Beijing, the Russian ambassador invited me to Moscow. I am not only establishing relations with the EU. I will go to Azerbaijan, I will go to China, I will go to Moscow. Let me tell you this: I will meet with Aliyev, I will meet with Putin, I will meet with the President of the People's Republic of China. None of these will happen overnight, but they will happen. Because if you are going to make a party the government, people look more at what photos they give and what they say while giving those photos than what that party says.

“If an individual does not meet with anyone, they isolate themselves from society. If a political party abandons negotiation, it isolates itself from politics. Then it does not become an alternative to the government in the eyes of the voter. This is not true: That is, one cannot meet with them. When you say one cannot meet with them, those who vote for them do not open a place for you in their hearts. Now, is it a bad thing that 50 percent of AKP and MHP voters in one case, and 66 percent in another, appreciate Özgür Özel's new political stance? If Tayyip Erdoğan appreciated it alone or if AKP executives appreciated it, doubt yourself, but the voter appreciates it. Is it possible to change this government without seeing appreciation from the voter?”

IF BAHÇELİ HAS DECIDED TO OBJECT TO NORMALIZATION…

There is an image like this: ‘Erdoğan is willing to soften or normalize, but his partner Bahçeli is putting a spoke in the wheel.’ Would you agree?

In my meeting with Mr. Bahçeli, there was the exact opposite atmosphere. It would not be right for me to go into too much detail, but Mr. Bahçeli also had important findings on this subject. And I left the meeting by expressing to him that I had benefited from his ideas. But of course, the group speeches of political parties are speeches made to their own groups and bases. Since I could not reconcile the tone in Mr. Bahçeli's group speech with the tone in the meeting he had with me, I thought that two of the people who wrote the text or contributed to the text—because they were afraid of the normalization process—did it, and I explained it. Because in a normal democracy, when a political murder is committed in the middle of the capital, it goes wherever it goes, and no party prevents this. In fact, everyone does their best to reach the concrete reality, the truth. Unfortunately, the MHP is far from this democratic, expected, and indispensable behavior. And in this, the responsibility of those two people is becoming more concrete day by day. After Mr. Ali Yerlikaya's visit to Bahçeli, Olcay Kılavuz's dismissal...

Do you think there is a connection?

I do. Last time he was a member of parliament, this time he was a parliamentary candidate. His dismissal is a very important sign in this sense, and the relations of the two people I pointed out, who responded with insults even though I did not mention their names, with Olcay Kılavuz are also known. This business should go wherever it leads; both the MHP and Turkish politics must get rid of this burden. We cannot carry this. And a part that I am pleased with is that, apart from these two people, no one in the MHP defended these two. In fact, I wish they had divided the tasks, one defending one and the other defending the other; at least there would have been someone other than themselves to defend them.

But Mr. Bahçeli said, ‘There is nothing abnormal in Turkey.’

If Mr. Bahçeli has decided to object to normalization by evaluating that normalization will eliminate his party's key role in politics, I will welcome this with respect. But the MHP's not normalizing does not require us not to act normally. We will continue to act as in a normal democracy, both towards them and towards all our political interlocutors.

"THE DAGGER IS NOT AN INSTRUMENT BELONGING TO DEMOCRACY"

Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu appeared on a television program after a long break and said, “I am not saying I was stabbed in the back for nothing.” Did you watch the program?

I did not watch it, I read the transcript. Because I was in a meeting with the Ankara City Council at that time. Let me say this: I did not take a very significant portion of those assessments personally, the dagger stuff. We closed the subject of the dagger with the chairman at the party congress. I had expressed that there is no one in this party who has a dagger. And as for the chairman, I would not attribute this to myself or a political friend. But there is a reality: Of course, there are very different assessments. Hz. Ali and so on, the dagger is also evaluated through some politicians. I do not think the chairman had such an intention. And in the CHP, neither the chairman nor any of us looks at the issue from this dimension, in a social democratic party. The dagger is not an instrument belonging to democracy. In democracy, you object; if it is not accepted, you object more strongly. There may be separations, there may be races, but in the end, we are children of the same party in a party founded by Atatürk. That is why the chairman would not allow anyone to do such a thing to anyone outside of democracy in the past, and I will not allow it today. CHP chairmen have such a responsibility. I did not watch it, but assessments came that Kemal Bey was very tense and angry.

He asked, “What would you say if the friends you fought with together, who insisted that you be the presidential candidate, then turned around and did the exact opposite to you?”…

It is very clear that he did not mean me here. The chairman knows this best. But I have no idea who he meant. This is a matter that Kemal Bey needs to clarify.

Did you read Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's desire to be a candidate again there, then?

There was no such thing among what I read, but I read many such assessments afterwards. Kemal Bey wanted to take the party to a safe harbor, that that harbor was the party congress, and after that congress, the party towards a different harbor...

Let me interrupt, is the party in a safe harbor right now?

The party has now moved towards another harbor, towards the harbor of power. 47 years later, we made Atatürk's party the first party; now we are moving towards power, another harbor. And that is the harbor of power. This time, we will make Atatürk's party the government in the first general election of the second century.

You are running a disciplinary process, can you explain?

After such a great election success, we pulled the disciplinary files to the center so that there would not be disciplinary processes and discussions in every province, and we are examining them here. There are several reasons for this. One is that I did not want there to be fights in provincial buildings after such a great success. Second, I thought that in such a critical process, different punishments for the same crime on one side, different punishments on the other, amnesty in one place, expulsion in another would damage the trust in the party; besides, there are court processes for this. As a whole, we are examining all cases; we will pardon the part that will be pardoned, and we will punish the part that will be punished. Let those who are offended be offended with us, but let them not cause a fight in the province.

What would you not pardon?

I do not decide this alone, but I cannot pardon those who have been candidates in the party for years and, when not nominated, become candidates against us at the expense of the AKP winning, or those who work against the party at the expense of the AKP winning. As we pardon this, it becomes an excuse for the next time.

Is the party's membership count increasing?

A lot. The youth branches are campaigning right now. We could not keep up with the membership forms. Nine to ten thousand young people join the party every week. There is a fierce membership campaign. We never conduct a membership campaign like the AKP by offering jobs or associating it with social assistance.

THERE IS A NEED FOR A STRONG PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

The IYI Party brings it up every time, in group meetings, but the CHP never mentions the parliamentary system, which was the purpose of the establishment of the table of six during the last election period. Do you want to switch to a parliamentary system?

There is no change in our determination to implement our commitment regarding the parliamentary system within a certain calendar when we come to power. But my job is to repeat the right things we did while winning or losing the last election, and to abandon the wrong things. I think that constant alliance negotiations between two elections and having the parliamentary system as the main agenda there did not produce a result in our favor.

So you don't want to trigger the trauma, is that it?

Although there were results of very valuable work in a 2,300-page memorandum of understanding, because the communication of the strengthened parliamentary system overshadowed everything else, we could not explain enough what we would do in agriculture, what we would do in education, what we would do in the economy, what we would do in foreign policy, or even if we explained it, we could not convince people of it. I am saying it on the record: When we come to power, there is a need for a strong parliament and a parliamentary system. Of course, there will be a discussion here. In a place where the president is elected by the people, will you switch to a hybrid system instead of a parliamentary system or will you take the authority back to the Parliament? It is too early for these discussions.

If the AKP says tomorrow, “Come, let's switch to a parliamentary system”…

That would require a constitutional amendment. I think I have described my line sufficiently regarding the constitutional amendment. I would give the same answer: I cannot say, if you say parliamentary system, go change the constitution. That would be something else.

News Source: 12punto