These views even made their way to newspaper headlines. Some of the views were along these lines: “The ice has melted between the AK Party and the Saadet Party.” Or, “We have decoded the meaning behind Bulent Arinc’s kissing Erbakan’s hand,” or, “If Arinc is not elected President, he will move to the head of the Saadet Party,” or even, “In the lead-up to the approaching elections, those anxious to interfere with the AK Party will use every chance they get.”For a long time now I have wanted to write about the Saadet Party’s political style when it comes to the AK Party and Erdogan. The leader of the Saadet Party, Recai Kutan, is truly a gentleman, a person recognized for his tolerance and attempts at dialogue in Turkish political life. However, he and his party are not displaying a political style suitable for people with whom they had previously occupied the same political rank and file. Am I saying that this administration should not be criticized? Of course not. All parties, opposition ones in particular, should and do criticize the administration. What I am noting though is the unique quality of the criticism emerging from the Saadet Party.
There are two unofficial media organs for the Saadet Party, the Milli Newspaper and TV 5. Milli Newspaper issues such heavy, insult-laden, unfair accusations and criticism against the AK Party administration that it is impossible to even understand. What can we make of the leveling of accusations of treason to the country against the prime minister, accusations cloaked in the garment of nationalism? Is there any supportable aspect to the Milli Newspaper charges that Erdogan is giving away his nation to Jewish people, especially in light of the fact that those leveling the charges are people who were working with Erdogan only yesterday?
We have always said that in politics, as people with a religious bent, we need to display a tolerant attitude. Yes, it is true that the AK Party has widened its platform to include many new groups. But in general, it is also true that the AK Party shares much of its platform with the Saadet Party. Is it then really suitable for the people leading the Saadet Party to say such things about the AK Party, so much so that when the members of the two parties come face to face there will be embarrassment?
Milli Newspaper, for example, never carried the photograph of the two sets of party leaders coming together at the funeral for Altinsoy. Readers of that newspaper were not able to see the pictorial evidence of Erdogan’s homage to Erbakan, of Erbakan’s courtesy in attempting to rise to his feet in respect for the prime minister despite his own ill health, or of Bulent Arinc’s deep show of respect towards Erbakan. In contrast to Milli Newspaper’s decision not to run this photograph, all the other big newspapers in Turkey did in fact print this photograph.
I am sure that one of the Saadet Party’s recent actions which most bothers the AK Party is their expression of hope for support from Dogu Perincek. The fact that people like Perincek and Mumtaz Soysal have spoken out on TV 5 makes you wonder what won’t people do for their own political beliefs?
For a long time now we have been insisting that the struggle to back differing political parties should not divide people into opposing camps and that politics should not be a reason for societal tension and fighting. There are those who want Turkey’s new era to be one of “the true national front versus the illegitimate national front.” What we are speaking about here is a nationalist wave, a racist campaign which does not actually overlap with religion or religious affairs. How is it that the Saadet Party could take its place in a movement like this? How is it that Recai Kutan and others like him could fall into backing a stance like this? It’s not that I am defending the administration or AK Party policies. What we want to see is for Erbakan, Kutan, and their circles to espouse a political style and stance that befits them. If in Turkey there is to be any division in political life and society, this should be between those who support democracy, human rights, freedoms, and the supremacy of justice… and those who don’t.
