By Gunduz Aktan
TDN- The measures taken by the Republican People’s Party (CHP) against Mustafa Sarigül, Sarigül’s Mersin rally and the attendance by the CHP’s opposition deputies has presented us with a typical political division of a center-left party scenario. Those who were not happy with CHP leader Deniz Baykal repeated their criticism. CHP had pushed the people away. It was no longer dynamic nor was it a possible alternative to the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP).
Actually, the problems faced by the CHP cannot be segregated from the problems that have plagued Turkish democracy. Our parties have failed to institutionalize. The process in the change of leadership can also be viewed in this context.
In early 1970s Takeo Miki, who later became prime minister of Japan, had described the elections for party leadership the “basis of all evils.” This description coming from the Liberal Democratic Party, which was an institutionalized party that had been in power for 15 continuous years with its leaders being elected by its deputies, was especially interesting. In other words, this problem is rooted in the nature of politics.
Sarigül, who transferred to the CHP from another party, wanting to become the leader and the method he adopted to accomplish this was very odd. We don’t ask that the candidates for party leadership, who later become the leaders of the country, have experience in state administration, economy or foreign affairs. Most of our “leaders” learned how to govern the country through on the job training. There were some who tried to stay in power to escape corruption allegations. Sarigül may also try to follow that tradition. However, can the problems faced by the CHP be resolved through being led by a “charismatic” individual capable of stimulating the people?
If the reasons the CHP failed to come to power are because they were an elitist party in the past and because the reaction of the people towards republican reforms is continuing and sees the CHP as mainly responsible for them, then there isn’t much for the party to do.
Some columnists accuse the CHP of not changing fast enough; however, the CHP supports Turkey’s European Union membership. They also supported the legal amendments that aimed at decreasing the military’s influence over politics. It is not opposed to globalization or the IMF stabilization program. It is “responsible” enough not to criticize AKP economic policies. It even keeps silent on the matter of social justice, which is the main slogan of all center-left parties.
So why is most of the liberal media opposed to the CHP leadership? The behavior of the media cannot be dismissed as a reaction against the CHP leadership, which followed an illegal path in accusing Sarigül of corruption instead of filing charges against him. The only reason we are left with is the CHP’s foreign policy, which is based on a Kemalist-nationalist stance. This can’t be, shouldn’t be, the reason for the media’s displeasure.
The CHP’s problem is actually a common problem faced by all center-left parties in the process of globalization. The post-World War II welfare states, based on Keynesian economic policies, are no longer acceptable. The development economy aimed at advancing poor economies is also no longer valid. Bill Clinton in the United States and Tony Blair in Britain succeeded in ruling over a burgeoning economy by utilizing the policies implemented by the conservative Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, who came before them. Leaders from continental European (except maybe Gerhard Schroeder) who don’t have the elasticity inherent in Anglo-Saxon tradition suffered serious discomfort. Instead of facing socioeconomic problems, they concentrated on liberal values, peace, the environment and EU integration in order to attract votes.
If the CHP fails to formulate a social project of applicable policies to resolve our problems, it won’t be able to attract votes, even if it is led by the most charismatic leader in the world. The formulation of such a project is possible, even mandatory, in a underdeveloped country like ours. A development strategy (not plan) based on the latest technology could be developed through imaginative, market-friendly interventions.
Secularism based on a Maturidi-Hanefi religious basis, just like Atatürk wanted, could resolve their lack of connection with the people.
Unfortunately, leadership elections are set by law. The parliamentary group electing the leader, like in Japan, the opposition within the party joining the leadership, could be a way to change leaders without splitting the party.