Wind shirt and cap
by
Naci Bostancı*

Everything a ‘brilliant achievement’

The “success” called for by the powerful applause is either achieved by the relevant person, or the circles that supplied the wind try to fill in the void by describing every word and every action as a “brilliant achievement.” The assessments of the people in the “wind tunnel” on Kılıçdaroğlu’s congress speech fall under the second category. “This is what he said ... he said in a striking manner ... he led the way ... he broadened the horizon.” Right now we can say these kinds of statements are linked to the excitement of starting a new period, but a tone that constantly explains everything in this fashion will lose credibility. Discourse will lead to complaints.

Cenap Şahabettin once said that the elite applaud when they like something, while the ordinary people like something when it’s applauded. Recall the laugh tracks on sitcoms. The applause tells us that a joke was just made and gives you the cue to laugh.

There was a similar mindset at the CHP congress as well that assumed people would “like something if it was applauded.” If an election was held immediately after this ruckus, it may have an impact on the approximately 1 or 2 percent “agile” segment of the society that is anxious about a “new train departing.” These people would not give any benefit to anyone, but at least they would make a difference in the statistics. Since the elections are going to be next year, “real life” will make everything fall into place by that time. That is because individuals of a certain age -- the main actors of a democracy -- evaluate all that is going on with the realistic mentality that they acquired from their firsthand democratic experience and make a decision according to the “conditions and opportunities,” not according to the mood. Thank God that’s the way it works out, as this prevents someone from coming to power because of some new wind that is blowing. An undeserved power will be bad for everyone, including those who supported it.

There were also some eye-catching points at the CHP congress that are important for the future. These can be read according to Heraclitus’ maxim, “Character is destiny.”

The first point that stood out was Kılıçdaroğlu’s image change. Unlike his usual style of suit and tie, Kılıçdaroğlu got on stage wearing no tie and a jacket with one button unbuttoned. We can’t say image is unimportant. The feeling of “authenticity” is an important principle that those who see themselves as an expert on this matter should not overlook. The profile you draw out should be compatible with the way the people know you. It should consolidate their perception. Overnight image changes have the potential of being regarded as an “experimental quest” and instead of having the expected benefit can be interpreted as “proof of weakness.” I wonder if those who see Kılıçdaroğlu as an “honest democrat” are bothered by his usual outfit? I do not think so. At least, I don’t think the CHP constituent base had any problems with the way Kılıçdaroğlu was dressed. Since it was your overall image, including the way you dress, that brought you to power, wouldn’t changing your style right before you take office be seen as a denial of your past? A leader is someone who wins the approval of the crowds for his identity and style. He is someone who, in addition to many other attributes, reconciles the two. Kılıçdaroğlu let his friends dress him up. As a result, he evoked the feeling that it wasn’t his choice or idea. A chairman’s outfit is not just an outfit, it is a reflection of his character and identity; it is a political project. Especially if he’s appearing before the people as the start of a “new period,” every movement, every action and every gesture will be carefully scrutinized and regarded as hints about the future. The chairman talks and so does his outfit. Saying it was his “friends’ idea” with respect to such an important issue is a factor that undermines his image. The people may start feeling uncertain, wondering if a leader candidate who has to consult his friends even about the shirt he wears will always do his politics in consultation with others. After all, they did fail in the Gürsel Tekin incident. On top of everything, Kılıçdaroğlu said he went on stage with a casual shirt in order to “be close to the people.” Being close to the people? Aren’t you a people’s party, anyway? Which party is trying to be close to the people but for some reason is failing to do so? There is a strong conviction in the collective CHP subconscious that the public has been seized by the other side. This is not wrong. Political opponents carry each other’s social geographies in their subconscious with a break that is different from the obvious. But you have to make a move for the public; you can’t just say, “to be close to the people.”

Being in Ecevit’s shadow

The other issue has to do with the late Bülent Ecevit’s cap. Ecevit had made the cap he wore symbolic of his social background. Due to his charisma, even if he had wound a pushi -- a black and white scarf traditionally worn by Kurds -- around his neck, he could make it meaningful. He did not derive power from symbols; rather, he gave them meaning. When Kılıçdaroğlu put on Ecevit’s cap, he put his leadership ambition in Ecevit’s shadow. Presenting yourself as an ideal leader in the mold of Ecevit is a bad way to start. A leader should be someone who surpasses the people of the past. It is for this reason that it’s risky to bring out the symbols of former leaders. I suspect the excitement and atmosphere in the large room stifled any careful consideration The problematic side to bringing in a new wind is its ability to change the existing harmony into discord.

Treating a person like he’s someone who can lead the party much better than its recent former leaders and bring it to power also means implicitly degrading the past. Every radical claim that comes with structural change includes a criticism of the past. Fancy words do not cover up the contemptible situation. Misinterpretations such as “Our new party was already heading towards winning power, but now it has the wherewithal to make a new breakthrough” will have no benefit. What is the critical distinction between good and bad? The sex tape scandal. Tears were shed, the ruling party was accused and accountability was emphasized, and then three days later a new administration was celebrated. During the congress there was nothing said about the ruling party’s alleged involvement in this unbelievable and unacceptable scheme. A person who’s been hurt would not paint this kind of picture. So apparently no one has been hurt. Could there be some people who are secretly saying, “It worked out for the best?” I can’t say anything about that, but there’s no other explanation for their satisfaction. Kılıçdaroğlu has failed to find a convincing tone that resolves this odd division and provides an explanation for all that has happened. This is a critical setback.

The balance between the ruling party and the opposition is important in every country to ensure that democracy functions and to enable the ruling party to always be connected to the people. A strong CHP will be good for everyone, especially the Justice and Development Party (AK Party). If rivals can establish reciprocity in real political waters, they will be able to complete each other. The CHP’s practice of fixing its eyes on the people is valuable, even though it is criticized for various reasons. A mindset that uses criticism to improve its political moves instead of seeing it as an effort to inflict harm and therefore assess it within the scope of “defense strategies” is a mindset that truly has the chance of coming to power. My hope is that the criticism in this article will also be evaluated in this way.