He almost declared the National Security Council (MGK), which is backing the process, as illegitimate. He implicitly warned that the military should not be part of the process. But I was utterly surprised to hear one specific argument Baykal voiced. He argued that the democratic initiative process would lead to a division similar to that in Iraq or the former Yugoslavia. “Turkey is really at a turning point. At the end of this process, conflict and tension will rise. At the end of it, we will be faced with what Iraq and the former Yugoslavia faced,” he said.I must quickly note that I agree with only one of these sentences, namely, that "Turkey is really at a turning point." Nevertheless, I would like to make my humble contributions to Baykal's discourse, the rest of which I do not agree with. For some reason in his ominous speech Mr. Baykal forgot to list the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) as an example of a country that ended up in division. I was expecting him to say in his first speech that the "democratic initiative process will cause Turkey to disintegrate, just like the USSR" so that everyone can clearly see what regimes Mr. Baykal and opponents of the process identify Turkey with. Also, I would like to ask him the following frank question: What sort of distorted mentality do you have, Mr. Baykal, to think that a country which has not been fragmented after 25 years of terrorism and a low-intensity war will easily be torn into pieces because of a democratic initiative that aims to strengthen the social peace?
Does Baykal really think that the destruction or fragmentation/separation that terrorism, pressures, bloodshed and tears have failed to achieve will be achieved through peace, tranquility and freedom? Is he really aware of what he is saying? Can he hear his own words? Or does he really think that Turkey is an antidemocratic, oppressive, despotic and authoritarian regime like that of the Soviets, Yugoslavia or Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Is he trying to say that what keeps this country together is nothing but the regime's oppression and despotism? Does he believe the country will be divided if this oppression is lifted?
What Baykal, who I think is not aware of the extent of damage he does to Turkey by likening it to Saddam's Iraq and the oppressive Yugoslavia, really prefers is clearly understood from his speech: The democratization and peace process which he believes has the capacity to divide the country should not be launched; rather, the despotic and antidemocratic character of the regime should continue and the bloody war should continue. Instead of the risky peace initiative or increased freedoms, the war that we are accustomed to should continue to claim lives. Is this really what Mr. Baykal wants? Can you go through the trouble of explaining how you can reconcile this with the social democracy of which you claim to be a proponent?
Given the fact that Mr. Baykal and MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli have clearly expressed their objections to the democratic process from the start and that they do not know the details of the process nor are inclined to learn them, and that they are not prepared to contribute to the process, we can safely assert that they are against any settlement. However, the people of this country will find it hard to understand that some political parties, particularly those led by Baykal and Bahçeli, are against the settlement of the country's most disruptive issue. What sort of political mentality is it that these political parties always side with the status quo, whatever the issue at hand? This is really hard to understand.
Another point I find difficult to comprehend is that some so-called intellectuals who follow the same line of thought as the CHP and the MHP and pretend that tens of thousands of people have not died and that large amounts of the country's resources have not been squandered because of terrorism stemming from the abuse of the Kurdish issue for the last 25 years. These intellectuals say that "the government and liberal intellectuals talk about peace as if there is a war in the country." They even raise objections to the use of the word "peace." I really doubt there are other creatures around the world except these so-called intellectuals who reject the notion of peace in advance. What I know for sure is that we are not living in the same country with these so-called intellectuals, who have nothing to worry about and who are mostly from what we call the "White Turks" and who are blind and insensitive to tragedy. Or these so-called intellectuals might have completely lost their ties to the masses, who suffer from great tragedies because of the Kurdish issue and terrorism, and are alienated from the sorrow of the society.
