Thoughts expressed at a casual event in February by Support for Modern Life Association (ÇYDD) President Türkan Saylan should be understood in this sense. The ÇYDD has been carrying out a psychological operation that targets a triggering of chaos that will pave the way for expected anti-democratic interventions, with the help of the Atatürkist Thought Association (ADD), led by former gendarmerie commander Gen. Şener Eruygur, whose blatant coup plots have previously been exposed.
Let's recall what Saylan said: "It is impossible for anything to happen in Turkey without our permission. … How can they attempt to amend the Constitution only because they have the majority [of the seats in Parliament]? We are the essence; we are permanent. Everyone should know this." The group referred to as "we" by Saylan is a group which is made up of a minority in every election but which also obviously claims to be the sole owner of this country.
Undoubtedly, the place where those who see themselves as the owners of the country becomes crystallized is the Republican People's Party (CHP.) As a matter of fact, Turkish democracy has been unable to cover any distance because of the CHP, which has acted as the representative of a certain oligarchic elite despite its claims of being a social democrat party. The CHP, which has recently drifted more and more toward fascist behavior, has assumed the mission of protecting the state from the citizen instead of vice versa. This CHP has started to act like the "sole owner of the state and the country" these days. The leader of the CHP, Deniz Baykal, ended his speech on a program aired on the CNN Türk news station on Thursday evening with these words: "This country is not without an owner. We are the owner of this country. Everyone should relax."
It is, on the other hand, it is interesting to see who this oligarchic and aristocratic segment represented by the CHP consists of: justices, the high bureaucracy, members of the military and academic circles. In brief, those who claim to be the owners of this country are in fact those who look down on people, who insult and belittle the public's will and who put up an indomitable class struggle through the primitively fascist statements they make in political debates.
According to this group, the preferences of people have no value at all in terms of political legitimacy. Rather, these preferences pose an imminent threat when they are in favor of anyone other than this minority. It is for this reason that some overly intelligent lawyers assert that it is obligatory to shut down the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), which was returned to power only seven months ago by garnering every other vote in the elections. In their opinion, the large number of votes cast for the AK Party only proves the extent of this threat. That is, if this party -- God forbid -- were to have won 70 to 80 percent of the vote, it would have been shut down long ago because the threat would have been greater! Fortunately, though, they won a relatively smaller piece of the pie.
This inevitably brings to mind a question: OK, suppose these are the owners of the state and the country, who then are the people that make up 80 percent of the population which constitutes a threat against them? How should this majority be treated? This majority, viewed as a threat by the owners of the country, is made up not only of AK Party supporters. Supporters of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Democratic Society Party (DTP) are also included, as are supporters of the Felicity Party (SP) and the Grand Unity Party (BBP). Should we, in this case, be inspired by Süleyman Demirel, who ended his political life with an allegedly democratic rightist identity and who recently deviated into neo-nationalism? Should we be inspired by his famous remark on headscarved students: "Let them go to Saudi Arabia"? In doing so, shall we exile the devout believers to Arab countries, the nationalists to Central Asian Turkic republics and liberal democrats to EU countries? It is very clear that this unrestrained minority, which cannot secure the support of more than 20 percent of the population and which will never be able to do so, is unwilling to share the country with the remaining 80 percent.
In modern democracies, the owner of the state and the country is no one -- or just the opposite: everyone; that is, the owner is the nation. Therefore, the country should be administered according to the preferences of the people. Those who do not rely on the willpower of the people can only create more and more problems, let alone find lasting and sound solutions to the country's problems, for they see the people as their enemy. An example of this is the problem they created in the Southeast, a problem which has claimed the lives of 35,000 of our people.
Only an administration that relies on the people's will and whose power is derived from the nation can overcome the difficulties encountered in the administration. Democracy can exist only when the people's will is made the dominant element in the country. That is why there can be no power above Parliament, the venue where the national will becomes manifest. In addition, the political parties that make up Parliament cannot be shut down on charges fabricated by the judiciary unless they become directly involved in violence.
If the administration of the country has not been shaped in accordance with the thoughts held by people and their value judgments, we can never talk of a unification of the nation with the state. In countries that lack this sort of unity and integration, social, political and economic progress cannot be maintained and real democracy can never be established.
In summary, this country belongs to no one for it belongs to all of us. This country does not need and is not bound to this unrestrained minority which continues to create more and more anti-democratic actions, provocations and polarizations in order to perpetuate its privileged status. Everyone should settle for the privilege of being an honorable citizen of this country and must internalize the results of the public will. No one's power is sufficient to turn Turkey away from its way to an egalitarian democracy.
