Kemal Kilicdaroglu and the ‘Bylock’ Dossier: Unraveling the Opposition Leader's Allegations

As an opposition leader in Turkey, Kemal Kilicdaroglu has been vocal about the alleged use of Bylock, a secret encrypted messaging app, by individuals involved in the failed 2016 coup attempt. However, his claims and the existence of a dossier have sparked significant debate.

The Background: Bylock and the Coup Attempt

The so-called Gulenist putschists, who are believed to have orchestrated or attempted the coup, used Bylock as a means of communication. Their use of this app provided evidence for the prosecution, leading to a large-scale purge of officials.

The Opposition Leader's Claims

Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of the opposition Republic Party (CHP), has accused the ruling party of Selectively Exempting Members from Questioning. He has suggested that the current policy of solely targeting Bylock users from outside the ruling party can be seen as an Orwellian "everyone is equal, but some are more equal."

The Alleged Dossier: A Hypothetical Document

If such a dossier actually existed, it would likely contain a list of CHP members who used Bylock, despite the fact that the ruling party has been long associated with the Gulenists during the investigation period. Instead, Kilicdaroglu has suggested that these names were withheld, leaving CHP officials unchallenged.

Public Reactions and Political Context

About half of Turkish voters see Kilicdaroglu's claims as a clear critique of the ruling party's selective approach, while the other half view his actions as grandstanding for personal gain and political attacks on President Erdogan.

The Question of Evidence

Despite the claims, there is no substantial evidence to support the existence of a dossier or the allegations against the ruling party. On the other hand, President Erdogan has not provided concrete proof that Fethullah Gulen was behind the attempted coup.

Why the Divide?

The gulf between these perspectives is a reflection of the broader divide in Turkish society. Those who view Kilicdaroglu's claims as factual believe in the existence of a looming threat, while those who dismiss them see his allegations as misleading.

Conclusion

The debate over the 'Bylock dossier' illustrates the complex and politically charged nature of the ongoing investigations into the 2016 coup attempt. Whether there is merit to Kilicdaroglu's claims or not, the issue has become a significant part of the ongoing political discourse in Turkey, dividing communities and political factions alike.

As Kemal Kilicdaroglu continues to highlight what he perceives as unfairness, the question remains: Does the lack of a dossier mean there is no truth to his accusations, or does it simply mean that the evidence remains hidden?