Türkiye’s political parties are going through a process of change. The two most recent elections hammered home the point that change needs to happen for political parties to address society’s demands. Change is the never-changing rule of life. The most important question relates to where, to what extent and with which stakeholders change should take place. Again, the debate over détente, normalization and constitutional reform highlights how and under which conditions political parties will undergo change. Since the "new constitution" debate will bring up various issues like identity, the political system and national security, political parties must not fail to revisit society’s everyday problems and long-standing issues.
Reflecting on the outcome of this year’s municipal elections, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan mentioned his movement’s “loss of blood and soul,” suggesting that the sought-after change will be comprehensive and deep. Specifically, it signals that not only the players themselves but also their policies, styles and approaches need to change. It also hints at the AK Party’s need to radically update its relationship with the electorate. The voters will obviously keep track of related developments.
And what kind of change do those voters, who did not participate in the most recent election yet expect their long-standing problems to be addressed, want? We are talking about a series of changes – not rushed but also not delayed, pursued despite everyday crises, carefully studied, based on norms and rules, dynamic, predictable and capable of facilitating the spiritual revival of a voter base formed over 23 years. It goes without saying that the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) greatest advantage is that President Erdoğan, an experienced leader, will oversee that process.
The Republican People’s Party's (CHP) new chairperson, Özgür Özel, knows that his party must continue to change. Having frequently talked about change in recent years, that movement now has to manage its agenda with cautious self-confidence. After all, they know that the May 2023 and March 2024 elections must be interpreted together. The CHP recently discovered the opportunities that social municipalism entails, the advantage of reaching out to the political right, the impact of touching on everyday problems and the benefits of communicating with different voter blocs. In this sense, Özel sticks to change by placing even his own party’s crises (such as mayors appointing their relatives to municipal offices) in a new context.
Yet, change entails two major challenges for the Republicans:
First, the CHP comes with heavy ideological baggage. The "CHP hardliners" phenomenon threatens to render ineffective Özel’s new discourse. From the appointment of relatives to anti-refugee sentiment and ideological exclusion, that rigid identity could not stomach Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s efforts to “make amends” and could not handle Özel’s “normalization.”
Secondly, it remains unclear who “owns” change within the CHP – which is not the case at the AK Party. The calls for change, which originated in the May 2023 election’s aftermath, highlighted the leadership of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu. Indeed, some CHP officials identified Özel as their party’s chairperson and Imamoglu as their leader. This year’s municipal election, however, bolstered Chairperson Özel’s "agency." Moreover, the CHP chairperson has associated the movement’s new discourse and style with himself. In this sense, Özel’s statements alone make headlines, which means he is turning CHP’s change into something more personal. A case in point was the recent remark, “This is the real Özel!”
That is obviously an effective way of communicating how the CHP is changing. However, there is a need to manage the distribution of power between Imamoglu, with his strong influence over delegates and the party leadership, and Özel, who took it upon himself to change the movement.
Going forward, those two challenges could distract the CHP from change.
