In a report about the triumphant Kilicdaroglu, the economist believed that he has little about the Kurdish question. The report says:
THE party has changed its leader, but can the leader change the party? That is the question consuming Turkey’s chattering classes now that Kemal Kilicdaroglu, a former civil servant, has swept to the leadership of the main secular opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP). He won a crushing share of delegates’ votes at a party convention on May 22nd.
Mr Kilicdaroglu’s surprise ascent has transformed Turkey’s political landscape and brought new hope to millions of secular voters who have long been desperate for a credible alternative to the mildly Islamist Justice and Development (AK) party that has governed alone since 2002. AK’s seemingly unchallengeable grip has even led to some overblown claims that it is heading towards dictatorship.
Founded by Ataturk in 1923, the CHP has been out of power for some 15 years. That was largely thanks to its former leader, Deniz Baykal, who has consistently blocked the reforms spearheaded by Turkey’s charismatic AK Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. A fervent backer of Turkey’s meddlesome generals, Mr Baykal had seemed glued to his post. But a secretly filmed sex video allegedly featuring him and his former secretary was then leaked to an Islamist website. Mr Baykal was forced to resign. His fate was sealed after one of his top lieutenants, Onder Sav, decided to back Mr Kilicdaroglu.
Can the mild-mannered Mr Kilicdaroglu steer his party away from the elitism that it has come to symbolise? Peppered with socialist-style clichés, his victory speech suggests not. Mr Kilicdaroglu had little to say about the Kurdish problem (although he is himself a Kurd, he did not even use the word). Nor did he mention discrimination against the country’s large population of Alevis, adherents of a liberal interpretation of Shia Islam that is uniquely Turkish. Mr Kilicdaroglu is an Alevi. As for foreign policy, all he offered was that Turkey should pay more attention to India and China.
Yet most Turkish voters care little about the liberals’ agenda and even less about the outside world. With his pledges of income equality and more jobs, Mr Kilicdaroglu seems bent on appropriating the role of champion of the underdog from AK, so eating into its traditional base in the shanty towns that encircle the big cities. To his credit, he has also promised to lower the threshold of 10% of the vote for parliamentary seats, a figure originally designed to keep out Kurdish parties.
Mr Kilicdaroglu’s strongest card is that he is squeaky clean. He first drew public attention when, running to become Istanbul’s mayor in 2009, he exposed various AK-related corruption scandals. CHP officials claim they have more files up their sleeves on AK associates who worked for Mr Erdogan when he was Istanbul’s mayor in the mid-1990s. They may use them before the general election due next year.
His other advantage may be Mr Erdogan’s hubris. This week Mr Erdogan dismissed the CHP as “tin” whose “gold” varnish had peeled off. He also seemed to take aim at Mr Kilicdaroglu’s faith when he called his supporters in the media “candas” or those who support can (an Alevi term for people). The latest polls suggest that, under Mr Kilicdaroglu, the CHP could take 32% of the vote. That would be enough to deny AK a third term of single-party government.