Remarks of CHP Parliamentary Representative Birgül Ayman Güler, “The Kurdish nation cannot be equal to the Turkish nation,” have flared up discussions over CHP’s identity seek that has continued for almost three years. Academic context of these words has something to do with the Republic’s construction of a nation project and with the Turkishness policy of the 1930s. Beyond that however, political translation of these remarks, which were made in the Parliament’s General Council by a main-opposition party deputy in today’s Turkey, is the Kemalist-nationalist resistance intended for that Turks and Kurds are not equal. This was how Güler’s words were read. And therefore they caused a great deal of reactions in CHP, in the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), in other political parties and in the public opinion. Despite fierce criticisms, Güler stood by her words and invited critiques for an apology. As she found support in no small parts inside the party, CHP yet again became the center of discussions.
On the other hand, CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu once again saved his position as he has always been doing in similar discussions; so he invited CHP deputies to keep calm and not to provide material to the media. In the meantime, he blamed the media for triggering the split inside the CHP. Kılıçdaroğlu, however, could have faced the dynamics as the source of dissociation and removed the ground for it by taking structural measures. But the existence of two wings in the party is not a secret. They have different understandings of state, society and politics. The difference is so serious that the two wings cannot even reconcile over solution plans to political issues. Actually, it determines the borders of CHP’s identity seek and political performance. Therefore, every analysis on political performance and identity seek should concentrate on the split itself, reasons of it and remedies.
A STAFF STRUGGLE OR SEARCH OF POLICY?
First of all, the dissociation determining borders of CHP’s identity seek has of course a connection with the dynamics of change. In the absence of serious efforts and search for adopting a new understanding of politics, an illegitimate and artificial interference from the outside forced CHP into a process of change that was triggered by a transformation in Turkish politics. And Kılıçdaroğlu did not become the leader of the party by winning an inner-party struggle, by the efforts of his staff and by having a new political vision.
And because of that, CHP’s pursuit of change turned into an inner-party power struggle in which the staff struggle took place at the center as policy search remained in shadow. The power struggle between the party headquarters and the party administration plus electors rather than its being between an opposition group and the party headquarters determined political codes of today’s CHP. In other words, because of a political engineering CHP came under, Kılıçdaroğlu had to start the power struggle as the CHP leader rather than an opposition group leader. On top, he neither has a political vision, nor a political staff to actualize this vision, nor an effective political strategy. Kılıçdaroğlu only knew the fact that he became the leader with a mission of change as a compulsory result of a new phase that Turkish politics entered following the Sept. 12, 2010 popular vote.
MISTAKES MAKE THE CHANGE IMPOSSIBLE
An almost three-year long search of politics in CHP caused inner-party dissociation in the end. Therefore, it could be said that dynamics forcing CHP into a process of transformation was the most crucial structural ground for this crack which draws borders of the search. This is not the only reason however. The ground making the transformation painful turned almost impossible due to Kılıçdaroğlu’s preferences. His biggest mistake in this process was to open room for new actors who defended former CHP
