AK Party deputy Özdalga says CHP is full of contradictions

Özdalga has been referring to a letter written by CHP Brussels representative Kader Sevinç to the Socialist group in the European Parliament. Johannes Swoboda, the vice president of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, said the letter was “completely unacceptable both in terms of content and the way it is written.”

Furthermore, CHP Deputy Chairman Hakkı Suha Okay continued to exasperate the EP socialists as he said that the AK Party’s campaign of disinformation in Europe has been very influential and that EP socialists were speaking without exactly understanding the content of the constitutional amendment package and were speaking about Turkey’s progress solely based on what they had heard from the AK Party.

Özdalga stated that “this is an awful claim” by the CHP, which has exposed the worldview of the CHP that insults European socialists. After that claim, Swoboda said no one can “inject” him with ideas of their own. We asked Özdalga to elaborate on the issue and more.

What is your evaluation regarding the letter written by the CHP’s Brussels representative to European socialists who have been expressing support for Turkey’s constitutional amendment package?

As far as we know from the media, the letter has an improper style and was received by surprise by its addressees. There have been questions regarding whether it was written within the knowledge of the central CHP administration, and apparently the central CHP administration approves of it. It is clear that the CHP not only faces hardships convincing the Turkish people with its arguments but also has difficulty convincing the foreign audience regarding why it will say “no” to the reform package.

Have you had any personal contact with the Europeans regarding the issue?

I did not have contact especially about the recent CHP letter, but I have talked to several people in Europe regarding the CHP’s political approach and its claim to be a social democratic party. I should point out that the issue has not been restricted to how Swoboda, the deputy head of the European Socialists in the European Parliament, reacted to the letter. In Europe, Swoboda is not the only politician who says that the constitutional reform package is a positive step for Turkish democracy. The group head of the European Socialists, Martin Schultz, also supports the reform package as well as the European Parliament’s rapporteur on Turkey, Ria Oomen-Ruijten. In addition, a number of European political leaders from a wide spectrum of political views have expressed support for the package. CHP officials have been fighting with all of them in an inappropriate way, and it is very difficult for CHP officials to explain why they oppose the reform package.

As I understand, you haven’t been surprised by the developments surrounding the issue of the letter, but do you think European politicians are surprised?

Up until the recent leadership change in the CHP, European observers of Turkey have been convinced that the CHP is not a social democratic party but a conservative party which has been resisting all kinds of reforms. As [Kemal] Kılıçdaroğlu came to the leadership of the CHP, everybody started to question whether the CHP would follow a different course. But for close observers of the CHP, it has been obvious that change is impossible for the party. There has been leadership change in the party, but the real power belongs to Secretary-General Önder Sav. In addition, former leader Deniz Baykal keeps his influence on the party. Kılıçdaroğlu does not have power to realize desired reforms because it is Önder Sav who holds the ropes in the CHP, and he is a renowned conservative in the Turkish political system. Kılıçdaroğlu is aware of the fact that there are expectations from the CHP, both in Turkey and in Europe, to adopt reforms that are in line with a social democratic party, but he can only use slogans and rhetoric rather than take real steps in that regard.

Do you think Kılıçdaroğlu would stay in the leadership of the party under such circumstances in which he cannot have real power?

This is hard to know. But as the CHP’s fight with the social democrats of Europe has shown, it is impossible for the CHP to make reforms. There are other signs in that direction, too.

‘CHP supports the Ergenekon gang’

What are those signs?

It should be impossible for a social democratic party to be in a position to support Ergenekon, because the Ergenekon case is first of all about fighting against military coup threats, coup planners and gangs that have been involved in political murders to damage the democratic regime of Turkey. But we see Kılıçdaroğlu supporting the defendants of the case even if he is the leader of the CHP, and many CHP deputies go to the hearings of the case in support of the defendants. They even try to block the activities of the judiciary members who are pursuing the case.

CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu first called on the government to abolish an article that served as a basis for coup perpetrators, but then announced recently its own proposal which does not abolish but partially amends the article. What is happening?

This is entirely symbolic. Military coups cannot be prevented by the adoption of new laws even though we know that this article has to be removed. But the CHP must follow a more consistent line regarding its attitude toward democracy, and it should demonstrate this with its policies.

What do you think the ruling party should do in response to the CHP’s proposal to change Article 35?

We will support it, but this is an insufficient move by the CHP regarding its commitment to protect the democratic regime in Turkey. The CHP should also face its past, at least the last 10-15 years.

What specifically should it do?

It should make it clear that its attitude of support at the time of military interferences into the democratic regime of Turkey was wrong. Instead of doing that the CHP follows a policy of denial. For example, let’s take the e-memorandum of April 27. It happened only three years ago, and the CHP has been supportive of that military intervention. Toward the months up until April 27, then-CHP leader Deniz Baykal openly invited the military to intervene into the process for the election of the president. He had open invitations to the military to interrupt the election of people such as Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Abdullah Gül to the presidency. When the military’s e-memorandum was made public, it was first the deputy head of the CHP, Onur Öymen, who said that they were behind every word on the e-memorandum. And Baykal said on May 1, 2007 during a press conference at the party’s general headquarters that they support the e-memorandum. I stress those details because CHP officials speak today as if they have not done those things.

In addition, there is an interesting development. CHP officials recently claimed that the AK Party and the General Staff collaborated for the release of the April 27 memorandum in 2007 as a way to secure more votes in the approaching election.

This is only laughable. They base this idea on Prime Minister Erdoğan’s meeting with then-[Chief of General Staff] Gen. [Yaşar] Büyükanıt at Dolmabahçe [Palace] as if such a meeting was so unusual. Instead of those ludicrous claims, the CHP should be critical of its own attitude. First, Baykal provoked the military for months for an intervention, then the military interfered with its April 27 memorandum and the CHP supported it, and then the CHP went to the Constitutional Court to have the unlawful 367 decision made a requirement for the election of the president.

‘CHP cannot tolerate differences of opinion’

You are talking about how the CHP should be involved in self-criticism instead of putting forward unfounded claims, but the fact is that they seem not to tolerate any opposing views as we saw in the recent example of local mayor Şerif Memioğlu from Bingöl, who faces disciplinary action because he said he will support the reform package.

This shows how intolerant they are. Kılıçdaroğlu campaigns for a “no” vote. We have to ask Kılıçdaroğlu if he said “no” to those changes during voting in Parliament. No CHP deputy said “no” to the articles in the reform package during Parliament voting [boycotting the vote instead]. And now he asks the electorate for a “no” vote. They say that the reform package does not contain sufficient changes, but when we offered them a complete change to the Constitution, they did not support that idea; indeed, they totally rejected it and said that this Parliament cannot do it. They don’t support a big change, and they don’t support a small package. How can they explain this situation in Turkey and Europe?

What is your presumption about what will come out of the Sept. 12 referendum?

Ankara will say “yes,” but with what percentage we will have to wait and see. My guess is that we will increase the “yes” votes until Sept. 12. There are reasons behind that. First of all, those who say that people should say “no” to the package cannot explain their opposition. On the other hand, we can explain to people what the benefits of the changes will be. Secondly, we have an upper hand when it comes to our organizational structure and how we work. And we also have a leadership advantage as to say that our leader Prime Minister Erdoğan runs a more effective campaign.