Moreover, they always raise objections to every single policy pursued by the ruling party, but they never offer their solutions instead... Yet, they never fail to maintain their leadership or to be perceived as leaders. This is because they are our leaders and they always think of us. They know that we cannot do without them. Frankly, what will you do without them? Have you ever thought about it?
Now, consider if the distinguished party leaders who are known only by their political failures, as they are defeated in all elections, one after another, had made -- even once -- that great mistake that the former prime minister of neighboring Greece, Costas Karamanlis, made on Monday, we wouldn't have our distinguished leaders with us today, would we? Could we still nurture hopes of benefiting from the vast political experience and vision -- which has remained virgin as they have never had the chance to become prime minister -- of Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli or Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal or Democrat Party (DP) leader Hüsamettin Cindoruk, though they may be having a hard time in catching up with the spirit of the time?
I really cannot understand how on earth Karamanlis made such a big blunder. If only he could look around and see how the leaders in neighboring Turkey managed to survive within their parties, he would certainly learn many lessons. Karamanlis and other politicians who are so selfish as to resign from office and deprive their followers of their indispensable guidance in the face of any failure have a lot of things to learn from Turkish politicians. Here I want to offer my small assistance to the fragile/vulnerable politicians who grow hopeless in the face of a single defeat, and give them examples from Turkey in our course named Introduction to Political Science (POLS 101). It is up to novice politicians like Karamanlis to benefit from them.
For instance, let us have a look at what MHP leader Bahçeli did in a similar case after entering the elections as a coalition partner on Nov. 3, 2002. After all those antidemocratic processes and the biggest economic crisis that he and his coalition partners made the country experience, Bahçeli's party could not pass the 10 percent threshold in the elections, and Bahçeli had made a similar mistake that Karamanlis has made today and declared that he would resign from office as the leader of the party. To tell you the truth, with this unexpected statement that had send shocking tremors all across the Turkish political paradigm, he had managed to create great expectations and enthusiasm in everyone. In the final analysis, what he had promised to do was a rare event in our country that is known to have perfected its political ethics. But, thank God, the bewilderment that Bahçeli had created did not last long, and just like [Süleyman] Demirel, [Bülent] Ecevit, [Mesut] Yılmaz and other respected political leaders, he took into consideration the “orchestrated demands” from his party and showed the self-sacrifice of continuing to serve as the leader of the MHP.
And, perhaps as a natural consequence of this self-sacrifice, Bahçeli had waged an aggressive campaign for the party's leadership in the party congress held on Oct. 12, 2003. Although he secured only 688 of the 1,127 validly cast votes in the congress, Bahçeli did not show any weakness as the leader of the party. Unfortunately, a very big majority of the party members who he said caused him to review his decision to resign after the election -- despite the fact that almost all of the delegates voting at the congress had been selected by the party's central management under his control -- could not realize the naked truth that they were utterly in need of Bahçeli's guidance and leadership although one year had passed since the elections. On the other hand, immediately after renouncing his decision to resign after the Nov. 3, 2002 elections, Bahçeli had recognized that his followers were in desperate need of his leadership. Indeed, this was what we could expect not only from the true leaders, but also from the MHP's başbuğs. Given that Bahçeli had been chosen to become the leader of the party, he has to carry this burden until he dies, just like his predecessor, Alparslan Türkeş, had done.
It was for this high-level relation between Bahçeli and the act of resignation that it was Bahçeli among the party leaders who showed the greatest reaction and touchiness with respect to ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's usual “call on party leaders to resign if they are unsuccessful in the elections,” as he did ahead of the general elections of July 22, 2007 and the local elections of March 29, 2009. However, he had already resigned at least once and withdrew his resignation upon “orchestrated demands.” Now, he would grow greater and become a legend, and perhaps, he would one day attain the honor of being a main opposition leader just like today's main opposition leader Baykal. Truly, there was no need for Bahçeli to quit his leadership so early as he had not even reached the age of 60 and there were many long years he would live in the future.
Please, do no take these words of mine wrongly. May God not deprive us of the leadership of CHP leader Baykal, who is already over 70 today, as long as he lives! Amen. Why shouldn't this nation feel the need for Baykal's leadership as they already feel this need for Bahçeli's leadership? Baykal, too, is making as big self-sacrifice as Bahçeli had done for this leadership, isn't he? Let me say that Karamanlis also has a lot to learn from Baykal, and return to our lesson. With respect to how to survive as a party leader, Baykal's case deserves to be discussed in POLS 404 (by the way, 404 is an adhesive brand in Turkey), not in POLS 101. Baykal is making far greater sacrifices than Bahçeli so that this country is not deprived of his leadership. Indeed, it shouldn't be easy to become the opposition party, although he was expecting to become the ruling party in the elections of July 22, 2007, despite the unconditional support from all sorts of antidemocratic forces including the military, the judiciary and Doğan Media. Please, remember that tragic process was not easy for Baykal. But still he could withstand it...
Consider a party leader; he risks being perceived as a person attracted to power or office in lending support to the military memorandum and the judicial coup for the benefits of the nation, and he even risks undermining the democratic regime -- which is actually not much needed -- by ensuring a legal miracle of the 367 quorum in the presidential election, but every one out of two voters casts his/her vote for that disgusting political movement which he tries to destroy because it is dangerous for the country! Is this fair?
Indeed, this outcome was not an easily digestible situation for some groups. Naturally, Baykal, too, could not digest it easily and he had to spend 10 days at home to do so. He could not make public appearances for a long time. Do not be fooled by his current performance, but after the July 22 elections, Baykal's voice had grown so feeble that we started to think seriously whether we were about to lose a very precious leader of ours.
Still, Baykal managed to get rid of all signs of weakness. Really, he was beaten, but he could stand, unlike Karamanlis. He did what was expected of him and he continued to serve as the leader of his party. He thought if he could not achieve his goal through elections, then he should seek ways of grabbing governmental office through other methods. Just a little bit of thinking was all he needed. The formula was an easy one and it has been tried in the past and proved to be effective: you just disperse fears concerning secularism and coax the judiciary into action based on these fears and you can beat the ruling party that you will never be able to beat through elections and you go on your way victoriously.
These things shouldn't be explained here... Actually, we do not have time or room for these explanations. Better, Karamanlis should study Turkish politics exhaustively. I am sure he has many lessons to learn from Demirel, [Necmettin] Erbakan, the Ecevit family, Yılmaz, Baykal, [Tansu] Çiller, Türkeş and Bahçeli. If he had studied these lessons, he would not engage in such a childish novice move as resignation. Still, he can learn many things from Turkish politics about how to backpedal from this decision. In this regard, he may start studying the above-mentioned Bahçeli case.
