Why are people carried away in a false wind of excitement when there is no prospect of change on the horizon? The end product of such conventions is nothing but the consolidation of the intra-party power of the leaders even though their failure in general politics has become quite obvious. Another function fulfilled by these conventions is to crystallize intra-party opposition through fake leadership races, thereby making it possible to purge the opponents following the conventions. And I don't know why, but before every such convention, a question bothers me: If it wasn't obligatory under the current Political Parties Law, how many leaders would deign to bring their leadership under discussion at party conventions? As you might already know, the CHP will be holding its convention next weekend. Although this convention, the result of which is already known, creates no excitement in the public, it arouses curiosity as about how it will highlight the lack of intra-party democracy in the CHP. This curiosity is more intense because it is the convention of a party that views all sorts of lawlessness as the "rule of law"; all anti-democratic arguments as "attempts to save democracy"; blatant coup attempts as "patriotism"; and which attempts to narrow down the bounds of the political sphere with its every move.
The conventions in Turkey are never considered chances for party policies to be revised or for a balance sheet of mistakes to be drawn up. Most of the time, candidates focus solely on the leadership race and it is hoped that the party will be able to make a leap forward through the vision and political philosophy of the new leader in the event that the present leader is somehow toppled in the race. In the meantime, because the intra-party elections are based on the system of delegates, it is out of the question for another leader to be elected, since the delegates owe their existence as such to the current leader. This holds as true for the CHP as it does for all other political parties. Therefore, deeming it likely that any of the candidates that will race against Deniz Baykal, the current leader, at the upcoming CHP convention might win is entirely futile.
Although Baykal's policy is archaic, polarizing and based on an attempt at making Turkey retire into itself and although this policy seeks to render the country's political mechanism defunct and tie the hands and feet of the Turkish left, this will not change the destined result of the convention. The main factor in this is undoubtedly the CHP leadership's being content with the leadership of the party for the satisfaction of its need for power, instead of targeting the political power of the country by following democratic policies. It is also decisive that the CHP leadership has no hopes whatsoever of leading the country politically, as it has not won a single political victory in decades. Maybe for this reason, the CHP has pinned all its hopes on and entrusted its future to anti-democratic interventions. The CHP, which is thus distant from democracy on the national continuum as well as in its intra-party affairs, thinks the more it narrows down the bounds of the political realm, the closer it will get to political power. For the CHP, democracy has been disposed of and universal values have been shelved.
Another thing that greatly contributes to this position of the CHP is that either CHP officials become "bureaucratized" in the party over time or those who are already so are made officials in the party. That's why the CHP longs for the power of appointed bureaucrats rather than a democratically elected government. This is also why we should not be surprised by the CHP's being the first and most influential cause of the outrageous 367 crisis, openly threatening members of the Constitutional Court by not being content with having taken the issue to the court, bolstering the e-memorandum of April 27 by keeping silent; responding to the results of the July 22 elections by insulting people and attributing the results to "people's lack of wisdom"; completely disregarding the principle of democratic courtesy by leaving their seats in Parliament during such a vital vote as the presidential election; having their party staff being seen to spend more time in the Constitutional Court than inside Parliament; and applauding the closure cases brought against the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and the Democratic Society Party (DTP). Ultimately, the anti-democratic attitude of the CHP has become crystal clear during historic conjunctions, such as the Feb. 28 process in 1997 and April 27 last year, and it symbolizes its return to its inherent policy -- dating back to the times preceding May 27, 1960 -- of defeating those it can't beat in the ballot box through the joint powers of the military and the civil bureaucracy with which it has entered into an alliance.
The CHP's essential staff under the leadership of Baykal now appears to be a bloc of staunchly Kemalist bureaucrats, and the doors of the CHP are thus strictly closed to real social democrat, liberal, pro-EU, villager, Alevi or Kurdish identities. Having banished all Kurds, liberals, countrymen and real social democrats from the party, the CHP has taken refuge in the shadow of the neo-nationalist ideology based on a marginal leftist nationalism that is seething with the passion of becoming a completely "Baathist" administration today. Moreover, anybody who has gathered his courage to tell the CHP that the emperor is wearing no clothes or anybody who is preparing to do this is banished from the party with such speed that his voice dies out even before reaching anybody's ear.
In light of all of this, we can conclude that the CHP's most concrete reality as of today is that Baykal has assumed his party's unquestionable "Il Duce" position, with his party acting like the only party in the country, even though the voters haven't deemed it worthy of power for decades.
If you are curious about the so-called rivals of Baykal at the convention, such as Umut Oran or Haluk Koç; these men stand no chance in the upcoming intra-party election and there is nothing they can give to the democratic political life of Turkey because they are more "Baykalist" than Baykal himself in that they have no new arguments and don't promise any improvements, either.
Let me finish by pretending as CHP supporter: CHP forever! Viva il Duce! Viva Baykal!
***
Special note: I have just been informed that Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Committee Co-Chairman Joost Lagendijk's mother has passed away. I would like to extend my heartfelt condolences to Mr. Lagendijk and his entire family for their painful loss.
