Despite holding power for twenty-three years, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has never been as weak and desperate as it is now. At no other time has it wielded such excessive power so irresponsibly. All three branches of the state, state apparatus, media, press, and democratic institutions are directed from the Presidential Palace. By turning the economic crisis into a political crisis, President Erdoğan controls an enormous amount of power to impose his own agenda on the country. The more he strengthens his authoritarian rule, the weaker he becomes, and his legitimacy erodes.

Erdoğan’s logic is simple: anyone who is not with him is against him. He has put all citizens in a position where their fate depends on his whims. The clearest example of this is the opposition he faces from the mayor of İstanbul, Ekrem İmamoğlu and other Republican People’s Party (CHP) affiliated mayors. For Erdoğan, the arbitrary decisions he makes with a handful of oligarchs in the Palace matter more than the will expressed by the people at the ballot box.

On March 19, Erdoğan staged a coup through the judiciary to remove İmamoğlu from office—just the latest in a series of coups. Every election held in the past has been questionable in terms of legality and fairness. Nevertheless, up until that day, the people of Turkey had started to accept this reality.

Instead of seeking compromise and respecting democratic norms, Erdoğan did the opposite. He attempted to impose his totalitarian will by subjugating all three branches of government, creating a one-party dictatorship reminiscent of fascist regimes, and seeking to eliminate İmamoğlu, the CHP, and the opposition as a whole.

In 1933, the Nazi Party became the largest party in the Germany. Hitler transformed the Republic into a one-party dictatorship, founded on a totalitarian ideology. Despite differences, Turkey is experiencing a similar process. The totalitarian ideology of Erdoğan’s one-man rule is based on the so-called “Turkish-Islamic Ideal,” which merges Turkish ethnic identity with political Islam.

While Hitler eliminated opposition through both legal and violent means, he was careful to give his dictatorship a legal façade. Today, Erdoğan is doing the same in Turkey, and his totalitarian ambitions must be curbed. After the attacks on demonstrators in the Saraçhane district of Istanbul, the broadest segments of society have realized in that all avenues for seeking justice have been closed, making street resistance necessary and legitimate.

Erdoğan and Bahçeli hold a majority in parliament, violating democratic consensus rules. Therefore, as long as the presidential system remains, institutional resistance is futile.

For this reason, the struggle has moved to the streets. It has become necessary to show Erdoğan and the Republican Alliance that their parliamentary majority means nothing in the face of a mobilized people. This happened in Saraçhane, where half a million people participated, and three days later in the Maltepe distinct of Istanbul, where more than two million people filled the area. The CHP, the Kurdish Party for Equality and Democracy of Peoples (DEM), and all opposition elements from both the right and the left are shifting the balance of power and demonstrating their majority in the streets. Retreating or compromising with the regime is unacceptable. As popular resistance grows and young people fill the streets, Erdoğan will lose all his power. The CHP leader, Özgür Özel, emphasized this point in front of the crowd on March 24, and he was right.

University students, workers, men, women, Kurds, Turks, people from the left and the right—individuals forming the full spectrum of society—gathered in Saraçhane, creating an unofficial yet broad coalition. As Özgür Özel stated, a “Turkey Alliance” was formed under the initiative of the CHP. However, it is now time to give this alliance a name and set clear objectives. The left must further strengthen this unity by developing revolutionary policies and projects. Some attempt to divert attention by criticizing the CHP’s shortcomings instead of recognizing the power of the people—this is a backward approach that does not advance the resistance.

Liberal and dogmatic leftist groups, instead of channelling the courage of the masses into a political framework, make shallow criticisms such as “let’s not follow the CHP’s lead,” pretending to take a revolutionary stance. An article on the Marxist Research website states:

In recent years, the rising star of social democratic liberalism, the CHP, is being used to increase its social approval. Protests that rely on ‘power derived from consumption(!)’ and musical rallies in front of Saraçhane, filled with bold but empty rhetoric, serve only as an emotional release and are ultimately wasted, restrained, and neutralized.

This approach criticizes mass uprisings without understanding the social psychology of the crowds, attempting to dictate how the people should resist rather than learning from them. Some even mock the youth instead of engaging with them. If the CHP proposes using “power derived from consumption,” then revolutionaries must push for “power derived from production”—or better yet, combine the two to establish political hegemony. Creative visions must emerge by deeply sensing the emotions of the hundreds of thousands resisting.

Rather than offering meaningful political proposals for the resistance, lecturing those occupying the streets through abstract criticisms of the CHP is pointless. A writer in Serbestiyet goes even further, claiming:

Since the party is drowning in the whirlpool of political short-sightedness and pulling its own base down with it, the thousands gathered in Saraçhane were left disappointed and hopeless. Neither Dilek İmamoğlu’s nor Özgür Özel’s speeches, nor Mansur Yavaş’s statements, could capture or reflect the political energy of the crowd.

These empty, bombastic words come from someone who clearly does not understand the fearless individuals resisting for days. Protesters are energized by the poetry of Nazım Hikmet and the folk songs of Mahsuni and Edip Akbayram. They stand against riot police vehicles (TOMAs) with their bodies. If some chant “We are Mustafa Kemal’s Soldiers,” then revolutionaries can respond with “We are the Soldiers of Socialism”—who could object to that?

The fact is, the CHP is the backbone of this resistance and the force that mobilizes the crowds. The goal should not be breaking away from it but rather developing the right strategies to incorporate it. A political project must be created that includes all social movements and political parties involved in the resistance.

Not much is needed—just 4-5 clear political demands. The responsibility for this lies with both left- and right-wing parties participating in the resistance. The following objectives could serve as a common ground for all components of the movement:

1. The release of İmamoğlu and other political prisoners.
2. An end to government-appointed trustees (kayyums).
3. Early elections.
4. A new constitution to include Kurdish rights and restore the parliamentary system.

These goals are not only achievable but also essential to the success of the resistance.

*****************

M. Tas is the author of the book Racism in Europe.