The debate on FETÖ's 'political wing' has heated up again. The main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), which claims that the July 2016 coup attempt was 'controlled', finds itself between a rock and a hard place.

While different factions within the main opposition continue to blame one another for once again emerging intra-party crisis, experts say point to a power struggle as the main cause of the problem in the Republican People's Party (CHP)

Head of the Turkish think tank, SETA, Burhanettin Duran said that the AK Party decided to hold elections not because of an ongoing crisis or political turbulence, but rather to tackle any future turbulence. He added that Turkey's hand in dealing with adverse conditions will be strengthened after the polls

On Feb. 3, the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) held its 36th Ordinary Congress.

One in the aftermath of the June 7, 2015 elections, there was talk of the AK Party getting divided and a fifth party finding a place for itself on the political stage. However, today, it is possible the MHP, CHP and HDP could spin off new parties

In an op-ed piece published by The Washington Post last week, Mort Abramowitz and Eric Edelman, former U.S. ambassadors to Turkey, called on President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to "reform or resign." What a joke!

The strong criticism of Ankara's Syria policy is unfair when Turkey is the only country using military power in northern Syria solely to secure its national rights and borders.

The results of the March 29 municipal elections go beyond the local scene and will have a bearing on the 2011 general elections. The "message" of the elections, however one reads it, has become the key word. Indeed, the electorate has told political parties, "You've got a message." The question is how to read it. 

Turkish politics is stuck on the question of who should become the next president of Turkey. The more Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan avoids talking about it, the more aggressive the opposition becomes. It is not only the opposition parties that are stuck on the question. The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) cadres are in no better a position. No one dares speak about the new president. From the heavyweights to the ordinary supporters of the AK Party, they all say the same thing: if Erdoğan wants it, he should get it because he deserves it. No other presidential election in recent memory, with the exception of that of Turgut Özal, has been as hotly debated as this one.

At its face value, these are exciting times for Turkish politics. A number of attempts are underway to unite the political right and the political left. They are driven by a zeal to save the Republic again. But no alliance is good without a common enemy. And the new enemy is AK Party Such attempts at unification have been undertaken before. Leadership for the political right and the political left in Turkey has always been up for grabs.

After days of debate and uncertainty, Abdullah Gül is finally a presidential candidate. Now Gül is busy trying to garner support for his nomination and, all being well, will be elected by the end of this month. What kind of a president will he be? And will his presidency provoke another political crisis in Turkey? These two questions will dominate the agenda for months to come. However the developments so far already provide some clues. By nominating Gül again, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) read the election results in the way their constituents read them -- Gül’s presidency was part of the election campaign from the very beginning. It would be wrong to reduce the AK Party’s victory to Gül alone, but the AK Party’s record over the last four-and-a-half years and what happened during Gül’s candidacy was a complete package for the vast majority of those who voted for the AK Party on July 22.

It was in 1965 when İsmet İnönü, former Turkish president and leader of the Republican People's Party (CHP), defined the CHP's position in Turkish politics as the "left of center."

The main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) will hold its general congress over the weekend. Deniz Baykal is once again a candidate for the party's leadership and appears to not have a viable challenger so far.

If there is one golden rule for understanding Turkish politics, it is this: You can never take anything for granted in Turkey. A case filed against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has come as a shock to many Turks as well as international observers.

A debate over the headscarf is revealing new dimensions of political discourse in Turkey. While conservatives and liberals use the universal language of basic rights and liberties, laicists use a heavily religious language to prove that the headscarf is not a religious obligation.

The unexpected switch of the CHP’s leadership from Deniz Baykal to Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu led to a series of debates about the party’s political future and its new place in the party system of Turkey. Most of the debates have focused on what exactly changed and what remained the same as a result of this switch. Kılıçdaroğlu’s speeches revealed signs for new directions in CHP’s discourse indeed, as they included novel issues such as intra-party democracy and empowering the party’s women and youth branches. The purpose of this policy brief is to propose ideas to the CHP as a socialdemocratic party, so it can be a serious political alternative to the conservative AK Party. The CHP’s major target should be democratization to be achieved at two different levels: (a) institutional and (b) ideological. Institutional democratization requires establishing intra-party democracy, decentralization of power, as well as bringing ideological heterogeneity and political debates back to the party. Ideological democratization is about bringing ‘the left’ back to Turkish politics by embracing a progressive and social democratic discourse. This entails moving leftwards, a de-emphasis of nationalism and the adoption of a more egalitarian, less elitist, more libertarian, and more multiculturalist world vision.

The world’s economics in 2010 were still struggling to overcome the financial crisis, which began in 2008 in the United States and became global in 2009.