Frankly, I wonder. What sort of connection do Devlet Bahçeli and his followers have these days with the concept of "nationalism"? If the concept "nationalism" could speak, what would it tell us about Bahçeli and his followers?Even if you bend or twist the concept of "nationalism" to the greatest extent or however you distort it, you should still have positive ideas about the majority of the country and you should advocate their goodness, welfare, peace and security, provided that you call yourself a "nationalist." Now that a person who does not love his nation cannot be called a nationalist, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) followers will no doubt tell us, "We are like this and act like this because we love our nation."
In this sense, I must acknowledge that I am "shocked" to see how the MHP has been performing recently. What is the use or benefit of its "provocative" attitude with respect to the Kurdish initiative and the peace and security of the country? Moreover, given the fact that the content of this initiative is still not clear, what is the meaning of the MHP's “we-may-go-to-mountains” attitude? Don't they see the risks of these "street politics" for Turkey?
The MHP's attitude cannot be explained with reference to the dominant political culture in Turkey or the typical "established opposition" mentality that would raise objections to every move from the government. Opposition parties exist to criticize or object to the government and stress the wrong policies of the government and explain their proposals, and all of this is expected from them. The MHP is not expected to support the government's Kurdish initiative or keep silent about. It is perfectly entitled to raise its voice against it. In the end, the MHP is a political party elected to Parliament with electoral support from the nation and it has a mission to represent the feelings of a group of people within the nation.
Nothing is wrong with all of this, but there is the style employed; how the opposition is exerted. Pursuing policies in such a manner as to pit one group against another can be described as odd in the least. Does the MHP mistake Turkey for Finland?
The responsibility of the opposition is as important as the responsibility of the government. We are in a political situation in which the prime minister issues disturbing and ill-advised statements, saying, "Those who cannot prove this are dishonest." But it is one thing for politicians to not observe political politeness toward each other; it is another for them to use words to provoke masses. The provoked masses or crazy types that may emerge from these masses may be costly for Turkey -- order is ruined and there is always physical and financial damage and a general loss of trust in state. There are many examples of this in the country's past.
Turkish voters know well that the worst damage is done to the country by the "heroes who save the homeland." Bahçeli and his followers obviously do not see the historic opportunity Turkey has captured two years later and analyze the current scene in Turkey as a historic risk. It is said that one should be able to distinguish between the rising and setting sun. Perhaps they cannot discern the difference. That's too bad. Otherwise, I do not want to believe that the destructive opposition line they follow can be explained with reference to the upcoming elections. They cannot be making calculations for the elections at the expense of sacrificing future generations. Indeed, they cannot be distorting the concept of nationalism to such extent.
