The History of the CHP Cannot Be Contained in Any Single Seat

Dear Readers,

Founded on September 9, 1923, the CHP (Republican People's Party) is a deeply rooted political tradition that embodies Turkey's founding will, the pains of transitioning to a multi-party system, political life interrupted by coups, struggles for democracy, and the will to rise again.

For this reason, every major internal conflict within the CHP cannot be seen merely as a race for the party leadership. Such crises extend beyond the party walls; they directly affect the hopes of millions of voters, the future of the opposition in Turkey, the credibility of social democracy, and the quest for democracy in the Republic's second century.

Today, the issue facing the CHP is greater than who is more righteous, who is stronger, who has more delegates, signatures, or legal advantages.

The real question is: Will the CHP bear the burden of personal ambitions, or the hope for democracy in Turkey?

The fierce struggle between Deniz Baykal and Mustafa Sarıgül in the past revealed the tension between the demand for change within the party and leadership habits. The crisis experienced today, under different names and circumstances, brings the same fundamental question back to the agenda: Will the CHP be able to manage its internal demands for change with democratic maturity, or will every search for change turn into a new rupture?

Competition is natural in political parties. Congresses are held, candidates emerge, administrations change, and ideas clash. These are natural parts of democracy. However, if the institutional identity begins to be crushed under the weight of personal power struggles, then it is necessary to speak of historical erosion.

Therefore, the duty of the CHP today is not to magnify grievances, but to assume responsibility for the future. It must produce answers with a social democratic mind to all of Turkey's grave problems, from the poverty of the people, the hopelessness of the youth, the struggle for equality of women, the search for justice for workers, to the Kurdish issue and secularism debates.

The way to do this is first to be just, democratic, transparent, and institutional within itself.

The CHP cannot promise justice to Turkey without first ensuring justice within itself. It cannot give hope for democracy to Turkey without operating democracy within itself. It cannot become a trustworthy alternative to power for society without prioritizing its institutional identity over personal struggles.

In the midst of such grave problems, the CHP's expenditure of energy on internal conflicts harms not only the party but also Turkey's hope for democracy.

Nevertheless, there is a way out.

If the parties wish, they can rise above personal grievances and current tensions. Instead of a conflict that will further wear down the party and polarize its members, they can show a maturity that will set an example for Turkey.

Today, there is a need for a common sense within the CHP that will highlight the constructive aspects of the parties, protect mutual honor, and prioritize the integrity of the party. This common sense must open a new and reliable path without disregarding anyone or denying anyone's efforts.

There are names in the CHP's memory that carry this weight. Experienced social democrats like Murat Karayalçın and Hikmet Çetin, remembering the measured, rational, and institutional political legacy represented by the late Altan Öymen, can take on an important responsibility today. Their intervention, and that of similar respected figures, to bring the parties together on common ground and propose a constructive process that will protect the CHP from a greater rupture, has become a historical duty.

Such a process should not be an arrangement where one side gains superiority over the other. A temporary and conciliatory path should be considered that collectively respects the party's honor, the will of the congress, the legal order, the efforts of the organization, voter trust, and social democratic responsibility.

If necessary, work should be done on a neutral transition timetable, a trustworthy congress process, a declaration of common principles, and a democratic mechanism that will quickly bring the party together.

The aim here is not to declare who won, but to prevent the CHP from losing its strength.

The aim is not to eliminate one person, but to revive the party.

The aim is not to magnify past grievances, but to make social democracy a credible option again in the Republic's second century.

The sentence that needs to be said loudest today is this: The CHP should not be seen as anyone's personal property.

No general chairman, no former general chairman, no team, no faction, no office can stand above this historical legacy carried from 1923 to the present. Individuals come and go, general chairmen change, congresses are held. But if a party's institutional memory is damaged, it takes years to repair it.

What the CHP needs today is institutional maturity.

In the face of such a historical task, it is unacceptable for the CHP to turn inward, to pit its own children against each other, and to drive its voters to despair.

What needs to be done today is not a race for loyalty to individuals, but a call for loyalty to the institution.

Everyone who cares about the CHP, no matter which name they are close to, must see this truth: The true greatness of a party is measured by its capacity to protect itself in times of crisis. Winning a congress is important; preserving institutional ethics is more important. Sitting in the headquarters building is important; having legitimacy in the conscience of millions is more important.

Turkey's historical memory teaches us this: When institutions weaken, democracies also weaken. When politics is confined to the shadows of individuals, society's horizon narrows.

In the Republic's second century, the CHP must produce answers with a social democratic mind to all of Turkey's grave problems, from the poverty of the people, the hopelessness of the youth, the struggle for equality of women, the search for justice for workers, to the Kurdish issue and secularism debates.

The way to do this is first to be just, democratic, transparent, and institutional within itself.

Today, the CHP has two paths before it.

The first path is the deepening of personal conflicts, the exhaustion of the parties by each other, and the crushing of the party's historical weight under current quarrels.

The second path is the activation of social democratic maturity, institutional reason, the mediating responsibility of experienced figures, and the will for a common future.

The CHP must choose the second path.

Because the issue is not only the present of the CHP, but the future of social democracy in Turkey.

The issue is whether a populist, democratic, secular, libertarian, and just political line can survive in the Republic's second century.

Therefore, everyone needs to take a step back and ask this question:

Will we entrust this party to personal ambitions, or will we prepare it for Turkey's democratic future?

The history of the CHP is too great to be contained on anyone's shoulders, and its institutional identity is too valuable to remain in the shadow of any personal agenda. The greatest task is to revive the idea of a social democratic future that will heal Turkey's wounds. Because the CHP is not the name of individuals, but of a historical responsibility.

Sincerely, Mücahit Özden Hun