Finding responsibility in the CHP

Finding responsibility in the CHP

In the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), the Central Executive Board (MYK) first and then provincial heads, Party Assembly (PM) and deputies met one after another and examined the election results.

Once more, we understand that the CHP administration does not see the election results as a success, but it does not talk about a failure either; they mention the protection of the votes. Even though the general perception is not like this, let’s assume the CHP administration is right.

Starting from the end, here is the question: “At least losing certain important cities is a serious failure. Well, after so many meetings, what are the decisions made about these results, what action plans have been made in association with these results?”  

Maybe the CHP should give its greatest self-criticism at this stage. Actually, it should go back and look at how many times the PM and the MYK have met and for how many hours; it should check that, as well as what decisions were made, how the coordination and practice were done and what the results were…

So, success and failure would be determined, because in the CHP it is not possible to find responsibility in the case of failure. In these elections as well; everybody who spoke, explained how “correct” they had been, but the results of the elections are right there.

The image is that the masses who have voted for the CHP are losing their hope; the way to change this into some morale is to at least submit a bill to those who are responsible.

Today, in every corner, the voter is complaining that the CHP could not protect the votes they had cast for it, but, however, is responsible in that complaint is never there.

Whereas, one of the deputy chairs of the CHP has only this job: in other words, he/she would work for five years to set up a system, and that system would be used only for one night. Despite all the ambitious words, that system was not effective in the 2011 general elections. In their report, the picture is no different in these elections either. Out of 194,704 ballot boxes, data from 78,312 were processed in the system.

The shown reason for this is that results with impressed stamps did not reach the headquarters. Well, wasn’t the aim for this job over the many years to prevent this? In this case, isn’t it only appropriate for the IT head to apologize for making the same mistake twice and withdraw? The voter would at least relax a little bit by thinking that whoever makes a mistake will withdraw.

Well, the problem is not only a few individuals. There are many old and new administrators who have never taken responsibility, who have never done any self-criticism and who still talk and even criticize.

Actually, especially in a leftist party, it is expected that those people who have an ideal and an aim to say, “Since I cannot win an election that would carry my ideas to the governing position, another friend of mine should try. I should also work for him/her to be elected so that I have a country led by my ideas.”

In the CHP though, this kind of an expectation has become a luxury. For this reason, many people in today’s MYK act the same as their predecessors. The voters, on the other hand, want to see the results of their support for the CHP; at least, the accounts to be settled for failures.