Will this prove to be effective? Yes, as our nation does not like affairs stained with monetary issues. Yet, let it be known that there are some aspects of this strategy that might backfire. If the criteria to be applied are not specified correct in advance, this might lead to some injustice and, at the same time, the strategy may backfire and the financial links between many people and organizations will be discussed.
Then, what are and what should be the criteria? (1) People whose parents have acquired political positions should refrain from commercial affairs to the greatest extent possible. (2) As these individuals cannot be expected to just sit and do nothing, they should take pain to avoid securing advantages using public resources. (3) People who run their businesses without benefiting from the state's resources should not be placed under suspicion just because their parents are politicians.
It is not right to line up all of the children of politicians who conduct their business while paying attention to these criteria and to treat all of them as "ordinary suspects." Whether the politicians in question are from the AK Party, the Republican People's Party (CHP) or the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), this is of no importance. If one says, "As their parents are politicians, they can employ their influence," then things change. Exercising influence! Are politicians the only group that can be accused of exercising influence? Furthermore, certain media organizations do not have a fair standard on their approach to the matter of exercising political influence. For instance, in the past, former Prime Minister Mesut Yılmaz's young son became the chief distributor of Coca-Cola, and those media organization exhaust themselves with words of praise for the boy. This is still the case. If the child of a politician from party X engages in business, s/he is praised as "smart and successful," while if the child of another politician from party Y manages a similar achievement his or her acts are described as an abuse of the system.
Let us suppose that the children of politicians obtain commercial success by using the influence of their parents. What about other professions? Relatives of the top judicial officials, or the top brass in the armed forces? Can't we regard their success as due to the privilege or advantage secured by their parents? For instance, how many children of the top brass are employed by the media groups that stress honesty? How many children of judges, prosecutors and bureaucrats receive "special treatment"? It was argued that if the "list of the people to receive scholarship from the safe-box of Bedrettin Dalan were examined, the web of relations could be deciphered," wasn't it? Some media organizations carefully avoided mentioning this list and its contents. For instance, there was a longstanding debate: "Why are retired generals employed as executive board members of big corporations? Do they deserve their positions or do they secure them by using their influence?" Even then, former Chief of General Staff Gen. Hilmi Özkok had to step in to put an end to these debates and said that retired generals may work for private companies.
Recently, the Vakit daily published a list of the relatives of some senior commanders who had obtained false medical reports to evade compulsory military service and openly wrote their names. It further claimed that certain relatives of commanders were not sent to the eastern and southeastern provinces, and again, their names were openly specified. Those who offer deaf ears to this side of the story tend to exhaust their words about their accusations that target politicians and; moreover, deem their attitude as being forms of successful press stories. If the reporting of children is a press success and if a transparent society is promoted, then Vakit's success is far greater than an archive search of the Referans daily.
What I am trying to say is that honesty should start at home, and a standard should be established to demand honesty from everyone at the same level. For instance, if any examination into using one's influence to obtain unfair benefits is to be conducted, it should start with the relatives of the media bosses, the editors-in-chief, chief writers, and "star" journalists, so that can be convincing. When the statement of a bank account of a journalist who tended to accuse everyone of corruption was disclosed, the general public was shocked. Sentences starting with "We don't involve ourselves with public service" are meaningless. Everyone knows that being a boss or executive of a media organization or assuming a position in the media leads to the possibility of a conflict of interest, especially when that group has some financial businesses or has engaged in public contracts. Do you know who can properly raise questions about unfair incomes: those truly sincere people who leave nothing to their children except their books or essays when they die. Other people should know well that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones as this may turn the entire building into pieces.
