Personally I don’t think that the public has been able to appreciate Mr. Baykal’s definition of “consensus” with regard to nominating an “independent” and “impartial” presidential candidate. So I thought to myself, if I could expand on the issue and clarify Baykal’s definition, I could do a little service to my country. Probably Mr. Baykal would like to say these things openly: 1. The president should be impartial. Even while appointing members to the jury of Constitutional Court, he should pay great attention to choosing those with a Republican People’s Party (CHP) mindset. And he shouldn’t worry at all even if this comes to light later on, because the real impartiality is claiming the spirit and philosophy of the single-party era of the CHP.
2. The president should be the owner of the Constitution. The booklet of the Constitution should always be in his hand so that he can throw it at even the most courteous and delicate prime minister when necessary. If the economy sinks and the country is ruined afterwards that is no concern of the president’s.
3. The relations of the president with the media should be real and objective. He shouldn’t speak to everybody. He should only receive İlhan Selçuk. He should also not neglect the TV channels. And it is known to everybody that his honoring the inauguration ceremony of a TV channel that is generously supported by the CHP, in return for being supported in its broadcasts, would never ever cast a shadow on his impartiality.
4. The president should have digested the essence of the secular-democratic republican understanding of the Constitution. While appointing a rector to a university, the thing he should observe is not academic merit and competence, but ideological loyalty. For instance, suppose a candidate has garnered 160 votes, and another got three votes. He should stop and ask himself, “Is he our man, or not?” Please don’t misunderstand; is the candidate for or against the republic? This should be the sole criterion. This being the case, when he appoints the one who got only three votes, he achieves a meritorious thing.
5. The president should not detach himself from people and should keep the Çankaya Presidential Palace always open to them. However it should not be forgotten that Çankaya is a public place. Therefore he should never ever allow entry to headscarf-wearing citizens.
6. The president should also be impartial with regard to religious beliefs. For instance, although 90 percent of the country’s population is Muslim, he should deem it perfectly appropriate to prove at every single opportunity that he doesn’t fast during the month of Ramadan.
7. The president should also be strictly observant with regard to using “genuine Turkish,” and he should prioritize choosing incomprehensible words, albeit knowing that he will not be understood. Instead of refah (welfare) he should say gönenç, erinç instead of huzur (peace), bağlaşık in place of müttefik (ally). If none of these words are understood by anyone, it is still not a problem.
8. The president should interfere in the elections that will elect his successor and should deliver a speech at the War Academies, and say: “The political regime in Turkey has never been exposed to such great dangers since the republic was founded. The ideology of the modern Republic of Turkey, based on Atatürk’s principles and revolutions, is a state ideology all citizens should side with.” And at April 23 celebrations, he should cut Parliament down to size and say in his address, “Also today, the Turkish Parliament is obliged to prove that it is still worthy of the sublime personality and reforms of Atatürk.”
9. The presidential candidate to be agreed on should make painstaking efforts to preserve his political impartiality and should hide his CHP personality as much as possible. And if his son-in-law runs for CHP deputyship, he should view it as a perfectly normal thing.
10. If it is not the CHP in power, he should do his utmost to obstruct the efforts of the government by putting up the fiercest opposition; he should make things as difficult as possible for the government.
Now our readers will ask, “But, Mr. Baykal hints at Mr. Sezer…” No, you are wrong, this is exactly what he says verbatim: “Mr. Sezer was an impartial personality. All the parties would agree on such a name. This is what consensus should be like.”
Don’t tell me, “No kidding? It’s impossible!” We have clearly understood what Mr. Baykal means by consensus, isn’t this enough?
