After Atatürk’s death, İsmet İnönü was elected Turkey’s second president and the second person to lead the CHP. He ran the party for 34 years, from 1938 to 1972. When CHP members elected Bülent Ecevit as chair at the 1972 congress, İnönü left the party, most likely with deep resentment. When he died in 1973 at the age of 89, he was not even a member of the CHP.
Bülent Ecevit carried the CHP chairmanship he had taken over from İnönü until the Sept. 12, 1980 military coup. Although he won 42 percent of the vote in the 1977 elections, he failed by a whisker to form a single-party government. His nickname “Karaoğlan” – because of his dark complexion – was on everyone’s lips. But Ecevit, too, would part ways with the CHP after the coup and never return. Complaining about factions within the CHP and the lack of support he received against the military regime, Ecevit would go on to found his own party. At the time, center-right leader Süleyman Demirel was called “the one who knows,” while in CHP circles Ecevit came to be described as “the one who divides.”
After Ecevit, Deniz Baykal became the CHP’s fourth chair. He led the party for 15 years. He stepped down in 2010 after the release of a video recording. Baykal, who consistently signaled a return, spent his final years as a member of parliament following serious health problems. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu replaced him at the 2010 congress.
WHAT WAS EXPECTED FROM KILIÇDAROĞLU
After Özgür Özel was elected chair in 2023, Kılıçdaroğlu came under a full-scale assault from both party members and media figures and academics close to the party. He was cast as solely responsible for the loss of the 2023 presidential election. Kılıçdaroğlu was treated almost as if he were politically banned. When he spoke, he was told to “be quiet.” Yet during operations targeting CHP municipalities and the party, the same circles then asked, “Why are you not speaking? Why are you not showing support?” Some even said he “should die.”
Whenever the issue of “absolute nullity” regarding the 2023 congress surfaced, arrows were directed at Kılıçdaroğlu. Most recently, a major controversy erupted after Cumhuriyet columnist Mine Kırıkkanat used the phrase “kılıç artığı” (leftover of the sword) for him. The phrase plays on his surname and also evokes historical massacres in Turkish; it refers to those who survived a massacre by the sword, and targets Alevis and Armenians who survived.
This time, Özgür Özel directly condemned the writer. She and the daily she writes for, Cumhuriyet, apologized. A prosecution was launched.
WHAT DID KILIÇDAROĞLU WANT?
In 2015 and after, Kılıçdaroğlu sought to break the CHP out of its traditional mold. Especially after the transition to the presidential system, he turned toward alliances that also included the right through initiatives he described as “reconciliation”. In doing so, he reduced the number of voters who once said, “I would never vote for the CHP.” There is a group of people who argue that he “imposed his own candidacy” for president in 2023. Yet in 2018, Kılıçdaroğlu named Muharrem İnce as the presidential candidate of the party. Despite resistance within his party, he nominated Ekrem İmamoğlu and Mansur Yavaş for Istanbul and Ankara in 2019. Since winning the presidency required 50 percent plus one vote, he formed the Table of Six, which included right-wing parties. Beyond votes, he also aimed for a return to the parliamentary system through that alliance. In fact, when he became a candidate, he did not seek to be the sole decision-maker like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan; he wanted to be the candidate of a broad alliance and to govern in that spirit. He received close to 50 percent of the vote, but it was not enough.
WHAT HAPPENS NOW
The debate over absolute nullity appears set to continue. Kılıçdaroğlu himself has said that “governing the CHP is harder than governing Turkey.” He seems likely to maintain his silence. There is no desire at all to divide the party. In fact, he has said, “party members may argue and fall out today, but tomorrow or three days later they will come together again.” Yet this time, it is also true that there is fury that cannot be calmed in three days. What is needed is not anger, but an open exchange of ideas and a search for solutions. It is possible to emerge from difficult times — and a way must be found.
