No matter what CHP (Republican People's Party) does, they cannot lock on to a certain level of success.
I wonder, why?
Some commentators, when delivering their statements in the presence of CHP, try to explain the reason with the factual basis that the designated strategy is not working. For example, a commentator says that, despite being on target, the strategy designated prior to the 2011 elections didn’t work. How can one say that a strategy, which didn’t work out, was on target or correct? I guess the explanation finds a correlation in the commentator’s mind. This is the strategy, which the commentator claims to be spot on:
“He says, ‘The great coalition of democrats, seculars, left-wingers, Kemalists, religionists, Kurds and Turks within CHP’ didn’t work out, and he is expressing his regret by saying, ‘It’s a shame, it’s such a shame.’”
The same commentator continues his opinion with “I hope that this time, while designating their parliamentarian candidates, CHP will concentrate on the pre-elections enough, as they’ve done until now as an organization, which uses the most democratic methods compared to all the other political parties…. / And also, while designating their quota candidates, they wouldn’t only look for “showcase ornament” celebrity just to impress the public, and choose people, who can be accepted by the voter base and ones that could be worked with efficiently, preferably between women and youngsters.” (Emre Kongar, firstname.lastname@example.org, Ocak 31, 2015 Saturday).
Now, these are the matters that could be stated over the opinions above;
If the designated strategy is accepted as correct and spot-on, then there should be no reason for why it wouldn’t work out. The strategy, which had been designated as on target, had transformed this party into a rag bag, and the sentence we’ve quoted shows this; putting aside the greatness of the formation, which is introduced as the great coalition of democrats, seculars, left-wingers, Kemalists, religionists, Kurds and Turks, it’s still disputable whether it’s a coalition or not….
On the other hand, the commentator states that CHP also didn’t act impeccable in the designation of parliamentarian candidates. Actually, a similar definition had also been brought forth within AK Party (Justice and Development Party ). However, AK Party succeeded despite this. Why?
It means that transforming the party into a rag bag under the name of a wide coalition or basing failure upon the error in the designation of candidates is not an on target statement. Similar errors are perpetrated in almost every political party to a certain extent.
Then, the failure should be searched for somewhere else. What is that reality, or what could it be? CHP is unable to create a project that will convince the voters. They are not saying solid things. The voters are being stalled off with fantasias, which are hollow and have no correspondence in reality. The voters are yet to hear a useful statement from the party on the matter of investments and social planning….
If we are to borrow Karl Popper’s notion, CHP is unable to form a “falsifiable” sentence. Being falsifiable means bringing forth an objective idea that is arguable, even if it is falsified.
However, what’s CHP doing? The party is idling around with personality, tricks and plots domestically and with verbalism towards the foreign countries. This prevents that party from being regarded as an alternative in the eyes of the voters.