The Turkish political agenda has recently witnessed heightened tensions stirred by the Republican People’s Party (CHP), marking a notable development in the country’s political landscape. The detention of Ekrem İmamoğlu—along with several others as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged corruption and terrorism—has prompted a strong reaction from the CHP.
Notably, the investigation reportedly stemmed from evidence provided by members within the party itself, adding a layer of internal complexity to the situation. While the long-term consequences are yet to unfold, the developments have already triggered an identity crisis within Türkiye’s oldest political party.
Losing the Middle Ground
The rhetorical trajectory of Özgür Özel’s leadership reveals a significant shift in communicative strategy within the CHP. Upon assuming office in 2023, Özel emphasised a positive discourse and a non-confrontational style of opposition, framing political competition as a democratic necessity rather than a battleground of hostility. This approach, which he characterised as a step toward normalisation, contributed to the CHP’s historic success in the 2024 local elections.
However, the CHP’s political tone under Özel’s leadership evolved notably following the detention of Ekrem İmamoğlu. Özel adopted a markedly confrontational stance, signalling a strategic recalibration in response to latest developments. This rhetorical shift underscores a departure from the inclusive, moderate attitude that Ozel initially embraced upon assuming leadership.
Rather than focusing primarily on legal defence channels, the party pivoted to street demonstrations lasting six days, culminating in a major rally. Disturbingly, groups incited by the CHP leadership to take to the streets have resorted to violence against law enforcement. Even more troubling, some individuals have gone so far as to desecrate mosques and graveyards—shocking acts that reveal a deep-seated hostility toward religious symbols and sacred spaces.
The party’s communication has focused more on attacking President Erdoğan than defending İmamoğlu, framing the issue as a populist rallying cry rather than a legal injustice—risking alienation of centrists while energising the party’s more radical factions.
Moreover, by positioning itself in stark opposition to President Erdoğan without presenting a cohesive alternative vision or a clear institutional strategy, the CHP may be forfeiting its traditional claims to democratic values, rule of law, and societal harmony.
Having made gains in the 2024 local elections, the party risks dissipating this political advantage through its current crisis management approach. The aggressive rhetoric has failed to resonate beyond the party’s core base and some radical elements across the political spectrum. Rather than consolidating its position, the CHP’s approach may be exacerbating internal ideological rifts and creating legitimacy issues.
Furthermore, the tension between Özel’s initially moderate tone upon assuming leadership and the current confrontational approach raises questions about the party’s strategic direction and internal coherence. The CHP, long viewed as the custodian of republican principles, now finds itself portrayed—by some critics and former allies alike—as adopting a posture akin to the radical right. This stance raises pressing questions about the party’s legitimacy.
Whether this is a temporary response to crisis, or a deeper transformation remains uncertain. What is evident, however, is the failure to manage internal divisions and articulate a unifying political narrative.
Boycott: A Strategic Misstep
The boycott campaign launched by the CHP in response to recent developments represents one of the more contentious aspects of its crisis communication strategy. Notably, the initiative appeared to lack a coherent framework or clear rationale, targeting a broad spectrum of media outlets and domestic products with limited differentiation. This lack of strategic clarity resulted in widespread confusion—not only among party supporters, who were often uncertain about the targets and objectives of the boycott, but also among the companies implicated, many of which struggled to understand the basis for their inclusion.
More significantly, the boycott raised questions about the CHP’s consistency. The party’s call to boycott elements of the domestic economy stood in stark contrast to its very limited action on Gaza nearly the past two years. Moreover, the potential economic implications of such a campaign—particularly its capacity to harm national economic stability—suggest that the political costs may outweigh the intended gains. As public support remains limited, it remains uncertain whether the CHP will continue to pursue this strategy or pivot toward a more targeted and coherent form of political engagement.
Although the boycott campaign was framed within an anti-Erdoğan narrative, it carried the risk of exacerbating Türkiye’s already fragile economic situation. Over the past several years, the country has faced a series of compounding economic challenges—including the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine war, regional instability, the February 6 earthquakes, and global financial turbulence—all of which have contributed to widespread economic distress.
Amid signs of recovery, such as declining inflation and improving macroeconomic indicators, the CHP’s call to boycott domestic economic actors appeared misaligned with public priorities. The initiative sparked criticism across the political spectrum, as it was perceived not only as an ineffective political manoeuvre but also as one that could destabilise national economic confidence.
National Gains at Risk
Alongside recent signs of economic recovery, arguably more consequential has been Türkiye’s progress in resolving its decades-long struggle with terrorism. The PKK leader’s recent call to lay down arms marks a historic turning point, signalling the potential closure of a conflict that has shaped the country’s security agenda for nearly half a century. These domestic gains have been paralleled by Türkiye’s increasing diplomatic visibility—particularly its successful mediation efforts in regional conflicts and its balanced positioning in the Russia-Ukraine war, which have been positively received on the global stage. As a result, Türkiye is emerging as a more assertive and stabilising actor in an increasingly fragmented international system.
In this context, the resurgence of domestic unrest—marked by street protests, clashes with security forces, and a resurgence of politically corrosive and divisive rhetoric—risks destabilising the fragile atmosphere of balance and recovery that has taken years to cultivate. At a time when global uncertainty prevails and most nations are preoccupied with their own domestic crises, external interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states has become increasingly unlikely, both in practice and in principle. It is within this shifting geopolitical landscape that CHP leader Özgür Özel’s appeals for international support appear to have fallen flat. His call for external political or economic pressure on Türkiye is not only misaligned with the prevailing international norms, but also likely to be perceived by the domestic public as a breach of national solidarity.
Failing to accurately interpret these global and domestic dynamics risks not only strategic isolation on the international front but also public backlash at home. In a national climate increasingly defined by aspirations for independence, stability, and geopolitical relevance, appeals for foreign intervention—especially those that may be seen as undermining the country’s sovereignty—are unlikely to resonate with a wide spectrum of the Turkish electorate.
All in all, the CHP had a rare opportunity to redefine itself and expand its political reach following its 2024 electoral success. Instead, it now faces the risk of ideological fragmentation, weakened public trust, and a deepening internal rift. If the party leadership fails to recalibrate its rhetoric and rebuild a credible moral and political core, it risks drifting further from the diverse and fragile coalition it has assembled in its bid for power.