What if things that couldn't be done after July 15th started to be done today?

After the July 15, 2016 coup attempt, the Hizmet Movement faced one of the deepest crises in its history. Criticisms from within the Movement and from intellectual circles close to it argued that the issue could not be addressed solely in the context of external accusations; the Movement's internal structure also needed to be questioned. The fundamental question is: What would happen if the cadre change, confrontation, civilianization, and localization expected after July 15 were to begin today?

Leadership, Responsibility, and Delayed Confrontation

The Movement's most fundamental problem after the crisis is that the expected confrontation after July 15 did not occur at an institutional level. Ahmet Kuru's critical line is based on the relationship between leadership and accountability. According to Gökhan Bacık, the more a movement leader can tolerate criticism, the closer they get to a democratic culture.

Within the Movement, this confrontation did not take place institutionally. A widespread belief emerged that some individuals who criticized, questioned, or developed alternative interpretations were excluded, isolated, or labeled as "agitators." The strongest asset of a civil religious movement is not its institutions or human resources, but trust, moral consistency, and accountability. When this asset is damaged, the movement begins to disintegrate from within, even without external pressure.

Why Did the Cadre Change Not Happen?

The first reason is that the current cadre sees itself not as part of the problem, but as the essential bearer of the solution. In crisis-ridden structures, central elites often identify their existence with the survival of the movement, believing that "if we leave, the structure will collapse." According to Bacık, confrontation and cadre change would mean the elimination of old methods and core elites, so this was not accepted.

The second reason is that the central structure perceives criticism not as an opportunity for improvement, but as a threat. Small local groups that believe in Hizmet's fundamental principles but want to distance themselves from the methods of the current status quo are seen by the central authority not as an alternative civil initiative, but as an uncontrollable risk. The third reason is the culture of allegiance to authority at the grassroots level; it is not easy for individuals socialized within a hierarchical structure for many years to develop independent initiatives.

The Issue of Silence

There are several levels to the silence of many individuals who witnessed the process from within. The first is fear; the political atmosphere in Turkey has led to severe consequences for individuals associated with the movement. The second is the pressure of belonging and loyalty; for individuals who grew up within the movement, open criticism can be perceived as betrayal against their past and spiritual affiliation. The third is the lack of safe alternatives. Criticism only becomes constructive when combined with an alternative moral and institutional foundation.

The central structure's capacity to reform itself may be limited; however, individuals and small local groups still have the capacity to make a principled, civil, and lawful new start.

"Pour the Tea, Kid, We're Starting Over"

The main recommendation of this article is that change should not be expected solely from central leadership. The phrase "Pour the tea, kid, we're starting over" represents a small, humble, sincere, and local beginning, free from grand claims, central hierarchy, and obsession with control.

The fundamental principles of these new formations can be summarized as follows: There should be no hidden hierarchy or confidential structure; every activity must be open, recorded, and auditable. A principle-centered structure, not a leader-centered one, should be established. The real needs of the local community—education, social aid, dialogue, integration—must be prioritized. Fighting with central authority should not become an objective; new formations should exist through their positive benefits. Financial and administrative transparency are indispensable.

What if Change Began Today?

If the Movement were to truly initiate a comprehensive change process today, a partial restoration of its moral legitimacy could begin. However, this process must be supported not just by symbolic statements, but by concrete institutional steps—cadre change, independent oversight mechanisms, financial transparency. On the other hand, even if the central structure reforms, the Movement may not be able to return to its former integrity. Diaspora conditions, the different expectations of new generations, and individualization processes have already effectively transformed the Movement into a fragmented structure.

The issue is no longer about what the big centers will do. The issue is whether a handful of self-actualized individuals in a country can do useful things for society without fighting anyone, without breaking the law, and without sanctifying anyone.

The question to be asked today is not "Will the Center change?" but "Based on what principle, for whom, and how will we be useful where we are?" Small but sincere answers to this question can be more real and transformative than delayed major reforms.