Gezi Park, the CHP and the Sidelines

There have been many analyses suggesting that there would be a radical decline in the support for the Justice and Development (AK) Party after the Gezi Park protests.
 
However, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan took action to consolidate his power. As a result, we have not seen a dramatic decline, only the natural decline (3-6 percent) expected in connection with being in power for such a long time. The Republican Peoples' Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) have preserved their votes, but there is no radical gain.
 
So, we need to ask these questions: If the Gezi Park protests are a reflection of social disturbance and dissatisfaction among some certain groups (urban young people who are either unemployed or work for low salaries, the urban secular middle and upper class, liberals, Alevis), why isn't this discontent reflected in Turkish politics? If the active and passive supporters of Gezi Park incidents are the groups that previously voted for the CHP, why didn't the CHP open its doors to Gezi Park? Why didn't this party take advantage of the Gezi Park winds?
 
The CHP has closed its doors tightly to the Gezi Park activity. It wants the Gezi Park movement to stay on the streets. They do not want its influence within the party. They do not take the Gezi park process seriously. They view it as a non-political act. The CHP does not want to open up space for the young people who took the streets because they were unable to express themselves in the political sphere. It is just stalling the process. They support Gezi Park solely to undermine the AK Party government. For this reason, there is no tendency to accept nominations from Gezi Park leaders and figures.
 
There are professional party members who excel at playing certain games. For instance, the potential candidates for local elections in İstanbul don't form their strategies based on serving the people better. They design their strategies based on how they will be able to advance their own goals as mayor of İstanbul and then chairman of the party. The initial step in this strategy is to determine the composition of the local branches of the party. In this way, they want to create a political infrastructure within the CHP. In short, the primary desire is to win the presidency of the party and control the monetary gains associated with local administrations. As indicated in the case of İstanbul, the potential nominees are removed from the reforms and changes demanded by Gezi Park. This already minimizes the likelihood of the CHP's success in the local elections. It deepens intra-party clashes. This also creates a perception that the CHP bases its political goals on the precept of a power struggle within the party. Neither Turkey's fundamental issues, the economic crisis in the world, the Middle East nor Gezi Park is discussed within the CHP. This is a period of stagnation in the CHP.
 
The CHP will celebrate its 90th anniversary on Sept. 9. Despite 90 years of experience, the party's top administration is composed of old politicians who have no ambition other than remaining in their party positions. The British Labour Party has renewed itself four times after election defeats during the period between 1979 and 1990 when conservative former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was in power. They became successful with party leaders Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair. However, there have been only five chairmen in the 90 year old history of the CHP: Mustafa Kemal, İsmet İnönü, Bülent Ecevit, Deniz Baykal and Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. The first two were founding father and national chief, respectively. There are only three chairs in 90 years who came to this position after elections. The CHP is unable to generate new cadres. It fails to add new figures to its cadres. It is suffering from sectarian politics. It is unable to confront the perception of a party model associated with the state in the single-party era.
 
The AK Party fears that the CHP and MHP will form an election alliance because of the Gezi Park process. But it is very unlikely that these two parties will make such an alliance. The Gezi Park process will affect Turkish politics from the sidelines rather than from inside the CHP or imagined alliances. There could be a scenario where the benches are politicized and the executives of soccer teams find a place in politics. For this reason, the party that appreciates the politics of the sidelines and can administer it will understand the streets.