The common questions asked on the phone or face-to-face by our American, European, Far Eastern and Middle Eastern colleagues are centered on who the people that filled the squares are, why they need such rallies, what they are protesting, who or what they oppose, what they want and what they defend. These are questions that have to be seriously dwelled on. Let’s begin with the question of who they are. This crowd is not a group that automatically formed as a result of discontent held in common, although they held placards and shouted slogans that would suggest the opposite. On the contrary, it is obvious that these rallies are the result of careful preparation, perfect planning and of months-long work and effort. We can easily make this determination just by looking at the important part of the crowd taken from one city to another; you can see the same people in Tandoğan, Çağlayan and Manisa.
Even though it is impossible to say the crowds in question are made up of a completely homogenous structure, we can say that their chief common denominator is their discontent against AK Party policies. Although it has been divulged that those behind the demonstrations are some retired generals (who while in office twice attempted to stage a coup against the government, and that all those who delivered speeches are narrow-minded people whose modernity is only in words, who are disrespectful toward human rights and liberties and who are the anti-democratic and repressive remnants of the Feb. 28 post-modern coup), the term that best fits the crowds in the demonstration is the “coalition of the disgruntled.”
We should acknowledge that a small portion of the protestors might really consist of people who are sincerely discontented with the present political situation, although a majority of them are the rogue supporters of a few so-called leftist parties. A poll published two days ago in Vatan newspaper proves us right. According to the survey, 62 percent of the participants voted for the CHP in the last elections. Only 8 percent said they voted for a right-wing party.
In contrast to what was claimed by the media, which called the demonstrations “the revolution of women,” 64 percent of them were male, and 62 percent of all participants were over 45. That is, the demonstrations were dominated by people who were taken from one city to another and from one square to another, just as Prime Minister Erdoğan said.
Of course, it is, on the other hand, impossible to know what each and every person who attended the rallies thought and opposed. However, lending our ears to the speakers, who we assume spoke on behalf of the crowd, would probably be helpful. We can easily infer from the subjects they dwell on and the things they emphasize at every demonstration that these people are against globalization.
Again, with the assumption that their participation in the demonstrations means approving the speeches, it is understood that they are against Turkey’s membership in the EU, the advancement of relations with the US and the Arab world, the flow of foreign capital into Turkey, foreigners purchasing property and living in Turkey, religious liberties (and of course missionary activities in this regard), Turkey’s commitment to becoming a more democratic, transparent and accountable country, all other lifestyles and worldviews except theirs and Turkey’s integration into the world.
It is hardly possible to make a distinction between their statements - in which they establish everyone but themselves as enemies -- and the totalitarian remarks made in Nazi Germany. But the only thing they are mistaken about is that although they appear to be very numerous in the squares, they are still a minority in Turkey. That’s why instead of democracy they are prioritizing a “republic,” which has variations that may legitimize even the governance by minorities despite the majority.
Well, maybe you are asking what these crowds -- which will once again meet in İzmir on May 13 -- are defending. First of all, they support Turkey closing into itself. They are voicing their aspiration for the republic -- hence they call their rallies “Republic meetings” -- like that of North Korea or Syria, with a republican remark that highlights its emphasis on laicism, not democracy.
For fear of losing their factional privileges in a free market economy and conditions of democratic competition, they have the selfishness and recklessness to opt for a repressive regime instead of democracy. And to this end, they are expecting the military to interfere more in politics and meddle in the current course of events, putting its seal on the process.
In brief, these crowds engage in utter political primitiveness in the name of modernity and advancement by, knowingly or unknowingly, following in the footsteps of a few junta leaders.
