It is a Kemalist party that envisions the nation as a homogenous whole, relies on bureaucratic, not people, power and is more concerned about protecting the ideology of the state, than the poor and dispossessed. Instead of standing for the international values of social democracy, the CHP stands for a narrow nationalism that sometimes seems xenophobic and anti-Western.For those who follow the party line in recent years it is not surprising at all to see them campaigning against the constitutional reform package. This party is opposed to any changes that weaken the established power of the state (bureaucracy) simply because it views itself as the “state,” and as the representative of the bureaucracy. People do not matter much.
Yet with the new leadership many, including some Europeans, expected some changes. They expect change because it would be natural and logical to change the old policy line that proved wrong, ineffective and failed. But the problem with the CHP’s leadership is that they are not even rational. Proof of this is the fact that a change in leadership only came about because of a sex scandal, not because of defeat in four elections and one referendum.
This is not a political party that the Europeans are familiar with. Assuming it is a social democrat party is totally mistaken. On this the European socialists have learned their lesson. Some European socialists called on the CHP to support the constitutional reform, arguing that it promotes social democratic values. They, of course, got the point. Positive discrimination for women and children is a part of a social democratic agenda. Expanding workers’ rights to allow them to stage a “general solidarity strike” is well-known demand and practice used by European socialists. Collective bargaining for civil servants, the ability to appeal to an ombudsman, trying coup plotters and enhancing the representative character of high courts can hardly be opposed from a social democratic point of view.
I think because he subscribes to this way of thinking and believes that the constitutional package promotes reform and freedom, Hannes Swoboda, an important figure among the European socialists, advised the CHP and its new leader “to stand behind this package and support it.”
The CHP reacted strongly by arguing that the European socialists are meddling in Turkey’s domestic affairs and that they are siding with a “right-wing political movement,” the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party). The letter sent to the socialist group in the European Parliament (EP) by the CHP’s Brussels office described the socialists’ call for yes as “scandalous” and shocked Europeans, who found it difficult to understand that this was how the party actually perceived the reforms.
Yes, that is how they view them, indeed. This is a pro-status quo party defending the indefensible: an ideological state ruled by a vanguard elite that disregards what people think. The CHP is blinded by its ideological (Kemalist) stand. Democratization and Europeanization are believed to water down Kemalism and its constitutional, social and political base. Because of this the CHP has long been in alliance with the conservative military and the judiciary to stop, or at least slow down, steps taken in the direction of democratization and Europeanization. In order to maintain Turkey’s Kemalist character, from which the CHP derives the power it is unable to obtain through democratic means, it is ready to sacrifice anything, including social democracy and the friendship of European socialists.
I do not see any common ground between the European socialists and the CHP, which, if I may borrow a phrase from the letter sent to the European socialists by the CHP’s Brussels office, is a “right wing, authoritarian and non-European” political party.
