A portrait of a politician: Deniz Baykal

MEHMET KAMIS; Zaman Gazetesi

After the Sept. 12, 1980 military coup, all political parties in Turkey, including the Republican People’s Party (CHP) were banned. It was 12 years later that Deniz Baykal, a former member of the Social Democrat People’s Party (SHP) and his friends re-established the party. The group decided they would set up the CHP with a new motto. On Sept. 9, 1992 Baykal told the nation that his party would embrace the teens in clubs and bars as well as the teens in Islamic vocational schools, the imam-hatip high schools, “Those with mini skirts and those with headscarves are both our children,” Baykal said. Then in 1993 Baykal visited Bosnia and distributed headscarves as a symbol of virtue and innocence. This act prompted a different view of the CHP as a leader in the country. The illusion was that Turkey had finally understood its realities and Baykal would lead the CHP with a completely new vision. Baykal’s promises were very disturbing for the status quo that refused change and wanted the policies of the ‘30s and ‘40s to return. Would Baykal become the arbitrator between the nation and the government? The leader of the other left wing party, the Democratic Left Party (DSP), Bülent Ecevit, was advocating laicism that respected religion. Since the public supported Ecevit’s idea, Baykal had envisioned adopting a similar stance. But after Baykal became the CHP’s leader, he failed to continue that line of thought. It was criticism from extreme laics such as Türkan Saylan that prevented Baykal from adopting or promoting any policy that would threaten the status quo. After Baykal became deputy prime minister, in 1995 he revealed a shocking report on imam-hatip high schools and the headscarf. The report promoted former policies and had no suggestion for improvement. It contained the words of an old CHP that had not changed in the least. Everything had returned to the past…

The CHP’s stance during the Feb. 28 process was even more frustrating because Baykal had become a completely different person. He was ill-tempered, harsh and provocative. There was no sign of the Baykal that only a few years ago had promoted a laic regime respectful of religion. In a battle with the Welfare Party (RP), Baykal offended a wide religious class in Turkey. But the CHP leader paid the price for his attitude at the polls. CHP failed to meet the election threshold and did not win any seats in Parliament. Shortly afterwards, Baykal resigned.

He returned to the spotlight in 2001. A new start as a new man, Baykal began the term with a quote from Sheikh Edebali. Realizing that his stance during the Feb. 28 coup had harmed Turkey and its public, Baykal decided to reconcile with the public through Edebali. Referring to Edebali, Baykal emphasized the need for a laicism that respected religious values. He defended that peace between the public and the government would be maintained only if spiritual and religious values were respected. The public showed their appreciation and rewarded Baykal for his words at the 2002 elections.

And now today it seems Baykal has lost his balance once again, owing to the tense atmosphere of the presidential election. The Baykal today is a leader that complains about politics to other institutions and does not honor the decisions of the Parliament. He is a militarist and statist politician that places the concerns of a certain group before everyone else’s.

During crises Baykal forgets the words he has spoken. He is like a man who becomes a werewolf at night. He does not care about preventing a crisis, calling for moderation, finding a balance or defending liberty. He becomes more laic then the laic elite and more militarist then the military elite. While his words offend most of the society, in particular those that respect religion, he has lost the opportunity to become a mediator between the public and the regime.

Today there are debates in the political arena on whether the CHP should be banned from Socialist International because it has almost no signs of a socialist democratic party. It is simply a laic party. It is unfortunate because Baykal could have been remembered as an inspirational leader. What Turkey needs is a true social democrat leader, not a spokesman for laicism…