The opposition seems unable to recover from its most recent election defeat. If anything, the ongoing crisis gives way to destruction. Having formed a “grand coalition” before the May 2023 elections, the “table for six” parties find it difficult to even analyze why they lost.
The Good Party (IP) chairperson Meral Akşener stepped forward by making the following statement at a public event in Isparta: “There’s no two ways about it. We have lost. We cannot get results by complaining that the people did not support us and questioning this great nation in a disrespectful manner.”
It is possible to argue that Akşener was one step ahead of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) chair who claims not to have lost the election in the face of calls for his resignation.
However, she is yet to identify the reasons behind the opposition’s defeat and those responsible – unlike Kılıçdaroğlu, who made a “modest” assessment by blaming villagers for not casting their votes. The rest of the “table for six” partners haven’t even offered any explanation.
Obviously, Akşener would possibly remind Kılıçdaroğlu that she insisted on nominating an “electable” candidate. She merely avoids that subject because it is too early for the IP to rule out cooperation with the CHP in next year’s municipal elections.
Blame game between CHP and IP
Some IP parliamentarians stated that their movement received fewer votes than originally expected due to their partnership with the CHP – an attempt to assign blame to the main opposition party exclusively.
It would be equally reasonable for CHP politicians to claim that Akşener cost Kılıçdaroğlu the presidential election by bringing up electability and temporarily leaving the “table for six.” Either move would push CHP and IP supporters, who oppose an alliance for the municipal elections, further away from each other.
It seems unlikely that the opposition parties will properly analyze their election defeat and jointly take responsibility for what happened. Any attempt at a “comprehensive analysis” would amount to casting stones at others despite living in a glass house oneself. That would certainly aggravate the opposition’s crises.
Yet the opposition won’t be able to alleviate the electorate’s anger in the absence of self-criticism and change.
Meanwhile, the Victory Party (ZP) and its chairperson, Ümit Özdağ, make it more and more difficult for the “table for six” leaders to stick to “indirect criticism” and “partial silence.” The Turkish people have already discovered that Kılıçdaroğlu had offered the far-right politician three Cabinet posts and the keys to the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) ahead of the presidential election’s second round. Özdağ’s decision to leak that secret protocol fueled distrust within CHP and the “table for six” as well as opposition voters. By forcing Kılıçdaroğlu to confess what happened, he dealt a heavy blow to the main opposition leader. The Victory Party chair proceeded to fire yet another salvo by claiming that the IP’s members had not voted for Kılıçdaroğlu.
Kılıçdaroğlu under scrutiny of accusations
Needless to say, each member of the “table for six” has plenty of excuses that could absolve themselves. Yet those parties and the pro-PKK Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) refrain from openly criticizing one another.
In contrast, Özdağ (who forced Kılıçdaroğlu to make far-right arguments on the campaign trail) has been giving hell to the opposition. Having leaked his secret deal with the main opposition leader, he currently encourages the CHP and the IP to play the blame game. One might argue that Özdağ’s public statements wear down the “table for six” to the extent that they won’t be able to join forces in next year’s municipal elections.
Undergoing a leadership crisis, CHP and its chair simply cannot avoid being blamed for the opposition’s election defeat. There is no point in appealing to the conscience of other parties by highlighting “shared responsibility.” After all, Kılıçdaroğlu bears greater responsibility for the opposition’s loss than others. He rejected a proposal, whereby the opposition would have jointly endorsed the CHP-affiliated mayors of Istanbul or Ankara, Ekrem Imamoğlu and Mansur Yavaş, and imposed his own candidacy on the opposition. In this sense, Kılıçdaroğlu suffered a two-fold defeat: as the presidential candidate and CHP chairperson.
Had the main opposition leader won the May 2023 election, the opposition would have hailed him as “the republic’s second Kemal.” Today, they hold him mainly accountable for what happened and there are but few who rush to his defense.
