This is what has happened to what a majority of observers regard as “the opposition for opposition's sake.” The behavioral pattern displayed by Deniz Baykal, the leader of the Republican People's Party (CHP), since the launch of the civilian debate by the government on the Kurdish issue, has now become a case of how to navigate aimlessly in the political seas. The first reaction of Baykal to the “Kurdish initiative” was denial. He fiercely rejected an invitation by the minister of the interior to discuss the initiative, taking refuge in old-fashioned formalities by claiming that he would only meet with the prime minister. Later on he claimed “this is a dangerous course” and threatened not to support possible changes to the Constitution which would enhance basic rights for Kurds, and outlined a couple of lines his party would not cross.
Yesterday came a zigzag, which some of us expected to happen.
In an interview with the Milliyet daily, it was, as it were, another Baykal speaking. As if he did not lash out at Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for not meeting him, he says the following: “I have no complaints about why this or that minister is sent to [meet with] me. I have no demands to meet with the prime minister either. It is up to his judgment.”
It is apparent, by the content of the interview, that the main opposition party, which over the years has consistently sailed away from whatever was left of its centre-left identity (in order to replace it completely with an unreformed Kemalist doctrine), is -- in a manner of speaking -- paralyzed.
The party is left between a rock and a hard place.
Baykal had initially -- in early summer -- calculated on the following: The military, which had given signals at the top level for an agreement to ease its hard-line Kurdish policies, had been thoroughly angered by the row over the secret document called the “Action Plan to Fight Reactionaryism” and further enraged by the limitations of the military courts' jurisdiction and would therefore leave the ruling party once more vulnerable and out in the open.
This, it seems to him now, is not to happen. President Abdullah Gül's resolve, the government's courage, and the nodding -- although reluctant and succinct -- of the top command has meant, altogether, that a consensus efforts will be demanded sooner or later from him on what is seen as a matter of national interest.
So, whining and moaning should come to an end.
As seen in the interview, Baykal outlines two “red-lines” his party will not cross: First, there should not be any arrangements that would lead to devolution; second, ethnic divide will not be allowed to enter into the education system.
Therefore, Baykal places himself rather firmly in line with what the top military command already stated. This was the essence of the brief messages given to the government by the military.
He then elaborates -- in an abstract discourse -- on what he thinks should be the basis of the reform process. He speaks about the “freedom for ethnic identity” and “respect for national identity.” The only element which he clarifies at this point is that the assimilation policies were not right. Then he goes further, demanding that the national identity should be “internalized” (“owned”). This identity, he states, was formed after a lengthy struggle.
After the abstract descriptions, Baykal comes to the heart of the matter. He offers four proposals and these should be noted with care as to clearly understand where he aims to take his party:
First, he suggests, “steps should be taken” to prevent people from feeling as if they are “second class citizens”. How? “[The] state's mentality must change. The public service philosophy and the approach by the public servants must change so that they will not treat people as second class citizens.” Then he goes into three other areas: Investments in education (emphasizing “quality”), launching public-owned companies in the region and investments in agriculture.
Is this all? Language rights, names, administrative reform, constitutional change? Nothing. This is where he stops. Some would claim he is even behind the top command in the vision. Others would ask, “What did you expect?”
Or, simply, shrug.
But he is now in the game, knowing he has to play it. It has become a part of daily politics, to be forgotten and reshaped the next day. It may seem comic, being devoid of any vision or content, but sadly the tragedy is overwhelming. Just because it is seen as an infantile game, a precious momentum is -- again -- under severe risk of being wasted. Hypocrisy within the CHP is dominant because there is no sense of feeling any shame or responsibility whenever great opportunities are flushed down the drain.
