The most important is communication. How do you begin to explain a solution to a problem? Do you respect your addressee? Do you value him? Do you respect his title? Or do you insist you know what is best, reject criticism and stubbornly try to convince the other side to accept your opinions? Do you perceive your addressee as the “other” and “inferior”? Do you think you are made from diamonds and pearls and others from bricks and sticks? If this is the case, then how do you expect to communicate? If you communicate with this mentality, how will you compromise? If you cannot compromise, then how can you live together?Yes, in communicating, your approach is very important. We are debating conspiracy theories, memorandums, reactionism and fascism in the presidential elections because we have the wrong approach in communication. The main reason for this is that we don’t want to share, therefore we don’t plan on cooperating and therefore we don’t try to understand each other.
However, if we have assimilated democracy, which contains justice and justice is half of religion, and we accept it as a merit, then the enchanted word for the decade is “sharing.” Humans despite other humans and countries despite other countries, even if they have power, cannot survive without accepting and acknowledging each other. Humans as well as countries must know their weaknesses. I heard from the esteemed Gulen that even if one person is the middle pole, it still needs the support of smaller poles. Especially nowadays. A happy future does not await those who say, “I know, I’ll do it, I am important, everyone else is just a figurine.”
Those who know how to share, whether in the family or workplace, or whether in the administration of a nonprofit organization or the administration of a country, will be able to achieve success.
You can defend democracy with words. But if you do not accept sharing, then you will surely reach the notion that you are the sole power. I look at those that defend military intervention in politics, despite the constitution’s power-sharing principle, and realize that this is actually their confession. They believe they are the sole protectors and guards. Once you say the civilian will cannot govern those in uniform, well the story is no different that the tale of the fox and lamb. A fox is determined to eat a lamb he sees by the riverside and as an excuse he shouts at the lamb, accusing him of muddying the water. Most shocking is the fact the supporters of the fox blame the lamb. They say, “Well you should not have been drinking water near the fox.” The lamb’s pleas and appeals, saying the fox came near him, unfortunately do not prompt justice and consciousness to come into play.
A lawyer of unfairness and injustice says: “Reactionism in this country began in 1946 and carried on during the CHP period. They opened the first theology faculties and then the vocational religious school. America’s green-belt project and so on and so forth.” Now to someone like this, who served as the chief editor of a rightist newspaper that defended vocational religious schools and who supported a president praised for opening the greatest number of religious vocational schools, can you teach religious and social freedom, democracy and human rights? Will he listen to you? Can you reach an agreement on universal human values with such people? Like the pearl and diamond vs. the bricks and stone example, you can’t communicate, comprehend or compromise. Whose fault is it?
