Fırat and Kılıçdaroğlu had agreed last week to appear on a live program on Monday to prove the accusations they had directed against each other. Kılıçdaroğlu, however, didn't participate in the program. On Tuesday, Fırat challenged Kılıçdaroğlu again to appear on a live broadcast to prove his allegations about Fırat suggesting that he was engaged in drug trafficking. It seems that even if the two appear together on a TV program, their row will not come to an end as long as they continue to use abrasive language, which kills the opportunity to reach consensus. Sabah's Ergun Babahan thinks the row between Fırat and Kılıçdaroğlu and the language they have adopted have brought Turkey back to its pre-2000 period, when politicians exchanged such verbal blows. "Before the Sept.12, 1980 coup, former politicians Süleyman Demirel and Bülent Ecevit had fights using similar language, dividing the society into camps and speeding up the polarization process," Babahan recalls. He says the Fırat-Kılıçdaroğlu row is also leading to polarization in the society and that the harsh language they use draws more attention than their allegations. "Your allegations do not win validity when you swear at your addressee. The best method is to come together and discuss each other's allegations in a civil manner with temperate language. Turkey does not deserve to be a country where politicians swear at each other on TV screens each and every day," Babahan stresses.
Another Sabah columnist, Emre Aköz, does not think the politicians appearing on a live broadcast will bring an end to this debate. He recalls how a similar row between journalist Emin Çölaşan and Ankara Mayor Melih Gökçek turned into a fiasco when they appeared on a live broadcast. "They shouted at each other. They showed some documents, but it was impossible for the audience to see those documents on the screen. The next day, Gökçek's supporters said Gökçek beat Çölaşan, while Çölaşan's supporters said Çölaşan beat Gökçek," Aköz recalls. In his view, if somebody is in search of facts about this debate, they cannot find them in the Fırat-Kılıçdaroğlu row. "While they quarrel, the TV screen will turn into a theater stage. The players will perform their own roles. When the program ends, neither the AK Party nor the CHP supporters will change their views," Aköz argues.
Hürriyet's Oktay Ekşi thinks the condition of politics in a country can be understood by looking at the language the politicians adopt when they argue with each other. "Particularly, the language of the members of Parliament determines both the level of political life and brings prestige to Parliament," he writes. In this regard, he finds the harsh words Fırat and Kılıçdaroğlu have directed at each other very unfortunate. Citing examples from other countries, Ekşi says when politicians are engaged in fierce debates with their fellows in the UK, which is the cradle of parliament, they still refer to each other as "my distinguished colleague" or "esteemed gentleman."
