The word “consensus” is a concept used unremittingly by those who would like to see Turkey remain somewhere between democracy and state despotism, never market the transition to full democracy thanks to the military custody regime and remain in limbo. According to these individuals, Parliament, which has been formed as result of democratic elections, has no authority to legislate, and the government, which comes out of this Parliament, has no authority to execute. Parliament, even if it has majority support for a law or a constitutional amendment, always has to get the approval of the minority opposition every time. The government has to work out a compromise with agencies led by appointed individuals before implementing a policy that it would like to introduce. In other words, the government too has to seek approval of the opposition, known as the spokesperson for the civilian-military appointed bureaucrats.This is an “intelligently” designed and strange understanding of consensus, one that treats everyone but them like a fool and one that gives “veto” power to a minority political party in every issue that is of crucial importance for the fate of the country. Our familiarity with this strange mentality, which ties Turkish democracy to the custody of the Republican People's Party (CHP), dates back many years. But one of the instants where it became most apparent was the aftermath of the constitutional change that lifted a ban on wearing the headscarf on university campuses.
As you may remember, the change was made in Parliament by governing party as well as by other deputies who had common sense. It was supported by 80 percent of Parliament. Hürriyet, the flagship newspaper of the Doğan Media Group, a proponent of the status-quo, announced this development in its headline with the phrase, “411 hands raised to chaos.” Even a compromise reached by 80 percent of Parliament to put an end to a chronic rights violations was described as “chaos” by this twisted mentality. In the end, this change was swiftly canceled by the Constitutional Court following an appeal by the CHP, which received 20 percent of the national vote. The party was portrayed at the time as the only party one had to compromise with on the issue, but a serious violation of the Constitution and Parliament's authority to legislate had been breeched. This is exactly the kind of “consensus” the minority segment, which is increasingly becoming marginalized, understands. It is, again, for such a violation of true consensus that the CHP today will be knocking on the Constitutional Court's door.
As you may once more remember, in the past few days, all spokespeople for the status-quo mobilized immediately following the change that allows military officers to be tried in civilian courts and asserted that President Abdullah Gül had to act as an “umpire between the different sides” at the National Security Council (MGK) meeting for a sanctified consensus. For days they published stories promoting this and made statement after statement to serve this cause. One has to ask, though, in what democratic system are those elected and appointed treated as equals just because they gather around a table together? They imposed this view, but not a single smart aleck was able to come out and explain why the president should act as an arbiter between the government and the bureaucracy that works for the government. They only hoped the rest of us would swallow this.
Possibly the only thing we should understand from the “consensus” they speak of is that everybody should accept the perpetuation of the military and the CHP and, all the better, of the judiciary on our fragile democracy and give in to all representatives of this doomed custodianship of politics, the media, civil society and the bureaucracy. If you don't give in to these, there is nobody better than them at completely dismissing your legitimate support from the people in a whiff, just as in their book there is no sense in looking for a consensus from the people. Even if you have the support of one of every two voters in the country, and even if this support has translated into an 80 percent representation in Parliament, it bears no importance or value to these military custody-mongers. In other words, those who would like to perpetuate the dominance they are used to in the current system would like to see everyone respect a self-granted veto power they hold. What's more, without the slightest shame, they tell us, looking straight into our eyes, that this is a “consensus” and expect us to believe it. Honestly, they are also shamelessly insulting the intelligence and will of the people.
Another hit word is “retaliation.” If you make a regulation regarding military officers that have been involved in crimes that concern civilians, or if you investigate generals and military officers who have tried to bring down the government and who have been involved in all kinds of illegal acts, including terrorism, murder and fomenting societal chaos, they immediately give you the label: retaliation.
For them, going after coup attempters, political assassins and those who have committed murders which have remained unresolved through legal means is retaliation. For them, going after those who massacred Hrant Dink, missionaries in Malatya and Father Santoro and those who masterminded the Gazi incidents and many others in a blood feud, it is retaliation. All this, according to them, is done with a horrendous desire for revenge.
Looking at statements and writings from this anti-democracy and anti-law camp, one would think that it is not prosecutors or courts that are after the criminals, but revenge brigades. And these brigades will go after the generals of Feb. 28, those who attempted coups, the murderers of Dink, the missionaries and Santoro and other political murders and antidemocratic activities to avenge these with their own hands? Unbelievable!
