×
An autocratic party
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
Turkey’s oldest political party that defines itself as "social democrat," although many in the country and abroad have difficulty in deciding where to place it on the Turkish or global political spectrum, held Sunday an extraordinary convention at a luxurious five-star Ankara Hotel.
The convention started with a lengthy speech from party leader Deniz Baykal who accused ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, leader and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of establishing a one-man rule in the country. While it was difficult to challenge Baykal’s assessment, it was obvious that the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, leader must be suffering from hypermetropia, a natural consequence for people over 70 years old. While he could see clearly that Erdoğan has grown into a sultan who has abandoned inner-party democracy in AKP back in 2003, he was unable to see in the mirror what he himself look like. Is he much different than Erdoğan?
Indeed, a better headline to this article might be "Baykal brings an end to dictating in party headquarters by establishing his own absolute rule in the CHP." Or, perhaps I should have used a little bit more "creative" headline like "The sultan of CHP" or perhaps simply say "CHP returned to its roots; abandoned democracy!"
The delegates of the CHP rubberstamped a set of proposals Sunday drafted by Baykal and his loyalists in the CHP introducing some radical changes in the statute and program of the CHP that all aimed to bring an end to the chronic faction politics that sometimes make life difficult for the party leader and renders for the party leader very difficult to stop discussions within the party over some of his policies.
In the jargon of a self-catering democrat’s freedom of thought, the right to object and to criticize are principles that should be enjoyed only by the "select" while the "serfs" will be free to think how big their leader is; to object to the charges made by opponents of their "paramount chief" and to criticize the critics of their "eximious leader." Further worst, very much like brushing aside the justice in representation and considering the ten percent electoral threshold as a requirement of stability in governance, these self-catering democrats consider killing the minute remnants of inner-party democracy as steps taken to consolidate cohesion within the partyÉ
Baykal the kingmaker!
The delegates of the CHP listened to Baykal’s speech, had some discussions over the bad performance of the AKP government and then raised their hands to approve the changes in the party statute and program transferring most of the duties to the party leader for the sake of "better administration of the party" or "establishing cohesion in party policies" or to achieve "better coordination between the party headquarters and the local organizations."
For example, the CHP will no longer have a 20-member party executive selected by the 80-member party assembly. It will not have as well a powerful secretary-general Ğ a tradition of leftist parties. Instead, the CHP will have a 15-member party executive (in compliance with the lowest number of members under Article 16 of the current Law on Political Parties) all but one appointed by the party leader. The only exception is the party leader, who is elected by the party convention. The new party executive will be composed of the leader, 13 deputy chairpersons and a secretary-general. The leader may sack any or all members of the party executive and form a new one the way he likes it, or when he decides so. In the provincial organizations of the party, election of the provincial secretary as well as the treasurer and the education secretary will no longer be done through secret vote of the provincial board of the party. Instead, those executives will be appointed by the provincial chairperson. The same mentality is reflected as well to the election/selection of the country organizations of the party with the "appointment power" is being given to county chairperson. Why these changes are being made? To establish better coordination with the party headquarters, that is with the party leader.
While supporters of these changes claimed that the CHP has done now what the AKP did back in 2003, to what extent it is democratic and indeed compatible with the principles of social democracy to create some little despots at local party organizations loyal to the supreme ruler at party headquarters for the sake of "cohesion in party administration"?
Is it possible to have an autocratic social democratic party?
Indeed, a better headline to this article might be "Baykal brings an end to dictating in party headquarters by establishing his own absolute rule in the CHP." Or, perhaps I should have used a little bit more "creative" headline like "The sultan of CHP" or perhaps simply say "CHP returned to its roots; abandoned democracy!"
The delegates of the CHP rubberstamped a set of proposals Sunday drafted by Baykal and his loyalists in the CHP introducing some radical changes in the statute and program of the CHP that all aimed to bring an end to the chronic faction politics that sometimes make life difficult for the party leader and renders for the party leader very difficult to stop discussions within the party over some of his policies.
In the jargon of a self-catering democrat’s freedom of thought, the right to object and to criticize are principles that should be enjoyed only by the "select" while the "serfs" will be free to think how big their leader is; to object to the charges made by opponents of their "paramount chief" and to criticize the critics of their "eximious leader." Further worst, very much like brushing aside the justice in representation and considering the ten percent electoral threshold as a requirement of stability in governance, these self-catering democrats consider killing the minute remnants of inner-party democracy as steps taken to consolidate cohesion within the partyÉ
Baykal the kingmaker!
The delegates of the CHP listened to Baykal’s speech, had some discussions over the bad performance of the AKP government and then raised their hands to approve the changes in the party statute and program transferring most of the duties to the party leader for the sake of "better administration of the party" or "establishing cohesion in party policies" or to achieve "better coordination between the party headquarters and the local organizations."
For example, the CHP will no longer have a 20-member party executive selected by the 80-member party assembly. It will not have as well a powerful secretary-general Ğ a tradition of leftist parties. Instead, the CHP will have a 15-member party executive (in compliance with the lowest number of members under Article 16 of the current Law on Political Parties) all but one appointed by the party leader. The only exception is the party leader, who is elected by the party convention. The new party executive will be composed of the leader, 13 deputy chairpersons and a secretary-general. The leader may sack any or all members of the party executive and form a new one the way he likes it, or when he decides so. In the provincial organizations of the party, election of the provincial secretary as well as the treasurer and the education secretary will no longer be done through secret vote of the provincial board of the party. Instead, those executives will be appointed by the provincial chairperson. The same mentality is reflected as well to the election/selection of the country organizations of the party with the "appointment power" is being given to county chairperson. Why these changes are being made? To establish better coordination with the party headquarters, that is with the party leader.
While supporters of these changes claimed that the CHP has done now what the AKP did back in 2003, to what extent it is democratic and indeed compatible with the principles of social democracy to create some little despots at local party organizations loyal to the supreme ruler at party headquarters for the sake of "cohesion in party administration"?
Is it possible to have an autocratic social democratic party?
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
