The Justice and Development (AK Party) governments under the leadership of President Recep Erdoğan transformed the country in all sectors, including domestic politics, foreign policy, economic relations, the social fabric and ethnic identities. Similarly, the AK Party leader, President Erdoğan, has largely changed the perspectives and discourses of all Turkish political parties, including the main opposition party, the People’s Republican Party (CHP).
Today, all political parties are trying to adapt to the new realities of the political atmosphere in Türkiye. But the majority of political parties have been ineffective in adapting to the new conditions. Therefore, these political parties can’t pose a serious challenge to the AK Party government. Opposition parties failed to attract even a significant portion of the popular votes. It seems, for now, there is only one political party, namely the CHP, that can challenge the AK Party government. Therefore, many political parties representing different worldviews and political perspectives entered into the general elections from the list of the main opposition party, the CHP.
By forming a large coalition with five different political parties, the CHP competed against the AK Party in the 2023 presidential and parliamentary elections. Even if it couldn’t get its presidential candidate elected, the CHP presidential and parliamentary candidates received a very high rate of votes in the elections. The following year, in 2024, the CHP came first in local elections and won most of the metropolitan municipalities.
Months later, many corruption investigations were opened against the CHP municipal administrations. The most important of these investigations was opened against Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem Imamoğlu, the self-declared presidential candidate. It was claimed that Imamoğlu exploited the municipal financial resources for his campaign in the next presidential elections. He was imprisoned after serious allegations and evidence were put forward by prosecutors. Later, investigations were launched into other CHP municipalities.
In response to these corruption charges, the main opposition party has attempted to politicize the investigation cases. Although the majority of investigations were launched based on complaints by CHP members, the party leadership claimed that the AK Party government initiated the entire process. Unfortunately, the CHP leadership did not provide a satisfactory response to the corruption allegations in its municipalities. As a result, the party’s leadership has attempted to hijack the corruption investigations from the general public and its own constituents.
Sources of CHP crisis
To understand the fundamental reasons for the CHP crisis, we have to analyze the most recent developments in Türkiye and CHP’s reactions to the AK Party government. First of all, the CHP has been experiencing an identity crisis for the last several years. Recently, individuals representing the traditional values of the CHP were sidelined and a pragmatic group began to dominate the party leadership. Some leading personalities from rightist and conservative backgrounds have been considered the hope for the party’s future.
Traditional CHP voters are unhappy about the changes within the leadership cadres, viewing the most recent changes as a deviation from the party’s long-standing tradition. Many CHP members claim that the new pragmatic leadership gathered around Imamoğlu largely focuses on short-term and personal gains rather than taking strategic calculations and institutional interests into consideration.
Second, the main opposition party failed in its most recent political opening. As a traditionally staunch secularist and elitist political party, the CHP has been unable to receive the votes of the conservative circles. Therefore, it initiated a political opening toward the once alienated conservative segments of Turkish society. As a result, the CHP sought to garner votes from various segments of Turkish society to boost its electoral support. However, the political opening was not sustainable, since it was forced and artificial. Eventually, the plan failed. After the presidential and parliamentary elections in 2023, traditional CHP voters blamed the coalition partners for the failure and the coalition of six parties collapsed.
Third, the main opposition party fails to read the national, regional and international dynamics. The AK Party government and its partner MHP, especially its leader Devlet Bahçeli, initiated a new political process, the “terror-free Türkiye” project, to solve the terror problem and manage the regional Kurdish question in the Middle East. The government has begun to take necessary measures against the increasing potential threats against Türkiye, mainly emanating from the Middle East. Therefore, the government has heavily invested in the development of the defense industry. However, the CHP leadership has failed to develop a perspective regarding all these developments. The CHP insistently opposed the efforts of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his government, pursuing a more independent foreign policy and increasing Türkiye’s strategic autonomy. The CHP, whose leadership preferred to pursue a policy in tandem with the perspective of global powers, has put pressure on President Erdoğan to remain indifferent to all regional crises, including the Syrian civil war.
Fourth, the CHP prefers to target personalistic and short-term gains over long-term political projections and strategic calculations. The party leadership does not propose any solution for any political, security, economic or social problem of Türkiye. In principle, they reject any step taken by the government. As a matter of fact, the CHP leadership has reduced the party’s vision to the interest of a single person, Ekrem Imamoğlu. It seems that CHP leader Özgür Özel is more determined to save Imamoğlu from the ongoing corruption investigations rather than to rescue his party from its deepening crisis.
Two scenarios for CHP
Considering the uncompromising stance of the CHP leadership, it seems that there are two possible scenarios for the future of the main opposition party.
The initial scenario involves mobilizing people to the streets, which carries considerable risks, to find a solution to the CHP problem. The CHP leadership refuses to find a solution to its crisis through legal means and democratic polity. The party leaders are aware that they have attempted every legal means to overthrow the AK Party government but have failed. Therefore, it may resort to illegal means to exert pressure on the government. However, this option is not viable, since the Turkish people will not support mass protests, which may cause political and social unrest.
The latter scenario is the division of the party. If the court decides that the party congress was unlawful, dissolves the current CHP leadership, and the former party leader, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, returns to the party, Imamoğlu and his colleagues could establish a new political party. However, the political history of Türkiye shows that the formation of new political parties is not the solution. There are only two successful cases – the Democrat Party in 1950 and the AK Party in 2002 – when the newly formed political party succeeded in coming to power.
The Turkish people must be convinced that there is an existential threat to the country and the only way to get rid of this threat is by supporting the establishment of a new political party and choosing a new government. Considering the strong leadership of President Erdoğan and the increasing capacity and capability of the Turkish state, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for the CHP leadership to persuade the Turkish people.
Eventually, it seems that the CHP faces a political stalemate. While not seeking a legal and democratic solution for the crisis it faces, the CHP crisis has turned into a political opposition crisis for Türkiye, which damages the effective multiparty nature of the Turkish state. It is impossible for CHP leaders to receive enough votes from the people to come to power without exonerating the mayors. In other words, the CHP leadership must first convince the public that their mayors are innocent. For this, they have to wait for the court decision. All in all, whatever the court decision and the outcome of the process, the CHP must solve its own crisis.
