Certain Turkish "columnists" have jumped on the occasion and demanded to know why Turkish youth or citizens do not react in the same way as those in Greece, and why, when there is any mistreatment in Turkey by the security forces, whether police or military, all hell does not break loose against them so that they dare not repeat that mistreatment in the future.I will not go into the details of the events in Greece. Herkul Millas' op-ed "A crisis of values in Greece" in Today's Zaman on Dec. 14 explained clearly enough what is occurring and why. My concern is the columnists and journalists in Turkey who are using this opportunity to target the police regardless of what this might cost the people, the nation and the state.
In the work of such writers we see a clear example of how transmitting information can easily turn into transforming it. It is not sensible or sensitive professionalism, but adversarial journalism. Rather than educating people and broadening their minds about nonviolent and peaceful protest, this type of journalism serves to prevent Turkey from achieving stability and consolidating true democracy and human rights.
This is not the first time that some press and media organs and their "wise" columnists have done so. We have seen this ideological blindness before: during the Susurluk case, the Feb. 28, 1997 coup, the irrational insistence on the quorum in the last presidential election, the military's e-memorandum, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) closure case and recent commentary on the case of the Turkish Gladio, the Ergenekon terror organization.
No one can condone violence, coercion, torture or killings at the hands of security forces. We openly and explicitly condemn it. However, neither can we condone violence, looting, vandalism and anarchy by anyone, anywhere or in any way. Just ends cannot be achieved through unjust means. The means we use must be as pure and lawful as the ends we pursue.
In contemporary societies, people are entitled to protest in order to express dissatisfaction publicly or to influence public opinion or policies. People can protest peacefully, without the use of violence, without loss of life and without any negative effect on the public or country.
In modern democratic societies, peaceful and non-humiliating protest is, in any case, more effective than violent protest. Violence should not be an "alternative," as suggested by "wise" Turkish columnists. It is not an efficient way to raise awareness of a cause or a struggle. It is counterproductive. This does not have to mean passivity or accepting authoritarianism and oppression. Political history gives us examples of peaceful heroes, such as Rumi, Gandhi, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Martin Luther King and many others.
Violent protest invariably leads to injuries and even fatalities. It threatens overall public safety and affects bystanders and the innocent. The general public cannot feel secure. What is the meaning of destructive acts, such as setting fire to cars, smashing glass, demolishing public facilities, throwing stones everywhere and at everyone and ripping up plants, trees and flowers? Why are some protesters armed with knives, pipes, batons and even firearms? We will not forget the photos of a "revolutionary" anarchist ripping up the tulips in İstanbul. Not only the protesters, but innocent bystanders and even journalists themselves, get caught and hurt in riots and skirmishes.
In dealing with protesters, police usually employ a range of tactics that are officially designated as non-lethal. Yet, we know that people can indeed die or be injured as the result of their use. None of this would happen if people preferred peaceful protest to violence. There are many methods of peaceful protest: collective marches, picketing, theatrical performance and protest songs, for example. There are other forms of education, persuasion and targeted communication via the mass media. These methods are more effective and nobody gets injured by them. Those who use them can easily win the sympathy of others.
Where is the morality and proper mental framework in suggesting violent protests, causing damage and meaningless destruction? If you are civilized, violence is not the way to solve problems. In a violent protest, how can one identify the right cause? It only harms the ordinary citizens' health, wealth, property and life.
If cooperation and consensus between all parties and compliance with legal means and ends are the fundamentals of contemporary democratic societies or civilized people, what kind of culture and country do these columnists who advocate violence belong to? We may prevent outer physical violence through proper ways and means, but how are we to prevent the inner violence of spirit of such columnists? On the eve of the municipal elections, when the understanding between the Sunni and Alevi citizens of Turkey is improving, when the leaders of the terror organization Ergenekon are failing to respond to cross-examination, is there something those "wise" journalists of Turkey know but we do not? It is revolting and irrational to suggest the use of violence to achieve a more peaceful society.
