Three styles of politics
On one side, there is the politics of strongmen who are dragging the country towards an authoritarian regime; on the other, there are efforts to stop this with a single candidate. The progressive people's opposition's attempts to intervene in politics point to the existence of another path.
The title Yusuf Akçura gave to his 1904 article on Islamism, Ottomanism and Turkism in relation to the country's future retains its meaning today, albeit in different forms. The country is at a crossroads. What a strange coincidence that once again, three political options stand before the people.
Different political styles, evident from the Assembly to the streets, have recently begun to accompany the question of ‘what kind of Turkey?’ This is why the articles bear such titles.
One-man politics: Erdoğan and Bahçeli have been steering the country towards a more authoritarian regime for nearly a decade. Their current moves aim to take the system established by the 16 April referendum to the next level. They too realise that the regime cannot survive in its current state. They want change in order to remain in power. Developments in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, the ‘Turkey without terrorism’ process, and the design of the opposition are all shaped by this motivation.
The components of the ruling party are also aware that they cannot do this alone. For this reason, they are seeking new alliances. This calculation also underlies Bahçeli's current interest in Öcalan, whom he had been seeking to execute until yesterday.
The most well-known name for this policy is the One-Man Regime.
Not only is the country governed by a single man; every issue is attempted to be resolved through single men. It is no coincidence that Trump is seen as an ally in the Middle East and Öcalan in the Kurdish issue.
Under this heading, it is also necessary to make a note about Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the former leader of the CHP. Kılıçdaroğlu, who has always presented himself to the organisation and the public with a ‘state–statesmanship’ identity, clearly demonstrated this approach in the candidacy debates for the 23 May elections and the subsequent congress processes. In his latest statement on the resolution process, what he said is less noteworthy than to whom he said it and within what political framework. Kılıçdaroğlu has become a political figure who is stuck between compromise and conflict.
A centre is being attempted to be built, where the people have no place in the country's future, and elections and the ballot box are made symbolic, a ‘consensus of the single man.’
Defensive opposition: The most prominent example of this situation is Ekrem İmamoğlu and the CHP. The struggle waged by the CHP and Özgür Özel against the regime is of critical importance for the entire opposition; it continues to be the strongest obstacle to the triumph of one-man politics. Similarly, the position of Ekrem İmamoğlu, who was nominated for the presidency by 15 million votes and is still being held in prison, is also decisive for the country's future.
The fundamental problem here is this: it is impossible to change the country by pitting one strongman against another, or one single party against another. Today, no approach that does not aim for a fundamental transformation of the system—no matter how resilient it may appear—has any chance of defeating the ruling power.
Therefore, the politics centred around the CHP and Ekrem İmamoğlu need a transformation that puts the people at the centre. This means moving from a defensive stance to an offensive one. In this regard, it will be critical for clues that go beyond the routine to emerge at the CHP's congress, which will begin on 28 November.
The popular opposition is seeking an outlet: Every day brings news of protests, strikes or marches somewhere in the country. The pent-up anger has now spilled onto the streets. People are dissatisfied with their jobs, schools, neighbourhoods, even the country they live in; we are going through a period in which change is being strongly demanded.
Today, these actions, which largely develop spontaneously around issues, offer clues as to how the politics of the future will take shape. The awareness of those at the forefront of this social movement, who voice their problems, take action, and seek solutions, brings them together on an anti-regime line. The demand for a say and a decision for their own future and their country becomes the fundamental character of this line.
WHO WILL WIN?
Three styles of politics, becoming clearer by the day, offer both answers to Turkey's current problems and directions for its future. The single-man regime's aim for a more repressive future, the CHP being kept constantly on the defensive and struggling to break out of this circle, makes the search for popular opposition even more important. The real power that will shape this emerging picture will be the organised will of the people. To the extent that society can establish an independent line that brings its voice to the centre of politics, the country's future will not be confined to the narrow consensus of autocrats; it will move towards a democratic, peaceful direction determined directly by the people.
Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Üç tarz-ı siyaset, published in BirGün newspaper on November 24, 2025.
