Opinions vary on the Fırat-Kılıçdaroğlu row: Some call it a political duel, while others criticize it as a mere show that will not shed light on the facts.Zaman’s Mümtaz’er Türköne thinks such political duels are a virtue of democracy. He says democracy allows political struggles to be carried out in a transparent and fair way and believes it is incorrect label such democratic duels with terms like “tension” and “war.” Commenting on the recently increasing political tension in Turkey, Türköne says that it should be evaluated within the limits of democratic competition. He points to an ongoing investigation into the Ergenekon gang, a shadowy crime network suspected of plotting to topple the government, as the cause of current political tension. “This investigation continues to shatter established relations of interest. The elimination of such an extensive and deep organization not only sparked reactions from its members who committed offenses but also from a wide network of interests. It is understood that some CHP members who define themselves as leftists, businessmen and mafia organizations are within this network of interest. Some depend on the maintenance of Ergenekon order for their future, while some try to alienate themselves from this gang to avoid punishment. All these efforts are reflected in the political arena as tension,” explains Türköne.
According to Sabah columnist Haşmet Babaoğlu, the televised Fırat-Kılıçdaroğlu debate is a failure for Turkey’s parliamentary regime and political system because the purpose of the debate is not to discuss their parties’ programs, projects or political actions. “They will continue on television screens a fight which begin with Kılıçdaroğlu accusing Fırat of engaging in drug trafficking and Fırat accusing him of being a slanderer,” he says. Babaoğlu complains that some newspapers see this row as a duel or a match between Fırat and Kılıçdaroğlu, but they miss the essence of the issue. “What does the public want: the disclosure of facts or one party finishing off the other? Do we want politicians to do their work, or do we want them to turn their allegations of corruption into a match? What a pity,” laments Babaoğlu.
Another Sabah columnist, Emre Aköz, also criticizes newspapers which refer to the Fırat-Kılıçdaroğlu debate as a duel; he likens it, instead, to a boxing match. “What is expected in a duel is the death of one side and the survival of the other. It is a black and white situation. This is more like a boxing match. Perhaps one of them will win, but both of them will be severely beaten at the end of the game. For my part, I want to know the facts, not to see two political actors exchanging blows,” says Aköz.
