I can summarize what was said as follows: Discussions on political reaction should not be made before the public. Regardless of whoever they are, they should avoid making statements that will stress the country. Debates about political reaction upset those who are religious. Since political reaction has not been clearly defined in Turkey, maybe it should be called extremism and investigated methodically. Groups then found to be extreme should be pulled toward the center. The concept of tolerating one another is inadequate by itself. We have to understand and respect each other... The insight Erdogan gave with this last move is all-encompassing and reconciliatory. Turkey needed this kind of invitation. Now there’s benefit in everyone with common sense looking at the issue of political reaction one more time from this perspective.
Years ago Mehmet Akif asked, “I’m the enemy of oppressors, but I love the oppressed / is this the meaning of political reaction in this dialect of yours?” What has changed since then until now? In every difficult period it was said that “political reaction has raised its head;” was the country better for it? No. First the devout were always hurt. Now, U.S. Ambassador Ross Wilson says, “There is always a certain amount of cacophony in Turkish politics and the media. I don’t see anything on the horizon in the near future to make me concerned about Turkey’s status as a strong, reliable, stable, secular democracy.”
Some get angry, but Wilson’s calling the political reaction debates “cacophony” is quite normal, because there’s no reasonable need to emphasize this much an unnecessary concern or supposition that won’t pan out. Plus, the average citizen doesn’t enjoy this endless debate. For this reason, the Prime Minister says, “Ask the citizen on the street if there’s a political reaction agenda. He’s right. Our people are a society that has always been respectful of different ideas and life styles and that knows how to share life while embracing these differences. They don’t want fighting, especially an artificial and political one. While Erdogan pointed to the streets, Mehmet Agar’s approach underlines the same truth with a phosphorus pen. The True Path Party leader says, “No one has traveled in Turkey as much as I have. I have never yet met a problem regarding this issue or a citizen complaining about it.” ANAP leader Erkan Mumcu sees the political reaction debate as an artificial agenda related to the presidential elections. It’s true. Behind this ostentatious fight lies the creation of a tense atmosphere before the presidential elections, the establishment of pressure on the party that holds the parliamentary majority in its hands, and efforts to impose agreement on one name.
Merchants of political reaction shouldn’t be listened to. For example, yesterday an extreme secularist retired general with the most fascist version of a newspaper that could be the subject of archeological research said (without taking into account the bad precedent of tension of February 28th and the cost of the corruption it lead to), “All of Turkey has surrendered to political reaction. It has come to power in Turkey.” According to this idea, which is frequently expressed by the local Pravda, the JD Party, which came to power with the votes of millions of people, is itself political reaction. Can one struggle with this pre-conditioned mentality? Can the concept of political reaction be examined with the mentality of a chief editor who has been connected with almost every junta since the 70’s? The media juntas have no relation to the streets, the people, our citizens; they are publishing for the military barracks and raking in profits for themselves by using our army.
It is necessary to leave aside the media junta that feeds on the fighting it has incited and listen to Prime Minister Erdogan’s latest call. Instead of “cacophonies” that will blacken Turkey’s future, we should think about breakthroughs that will carry the extremes to the center. This is also the feeling of the people. Like litmus paper, this call is plain enough to separate sincere concerns from bad intentions. It will be necessary to look at where people stand in the coming days from the framework of this call.
October 05, 2006
