Opposition faces tough agenda test

As for Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli, he is preparing his party for public rallies so as not to get lost in the grind of the agenda. While placing his focus on winning public support through demonstrations, the MHP leader has urged his supporters to avoid becoming involved with provocative acts organized by other groups. Both leaders appear to be uneasy over what is going on in Turkey. While in the past the lack of a stable ruling power used to be Turkey’s most critical problem, today the most important problem is the lack of a good opposition. This is a sentiment shared by all opposition parties other than the CHP and the MHP.

A friend of mine who used to be a CHP supporter explained that the CHP has the greater responsibility, noting, “Unfortunately, the CHP has misappropriated the role of being a leftist party although it is not a leftist party, and it has also misappropriated the role of being an opposition party by not making constructive criticism.”

When the infamous action plan to discredit the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and the Gülen movement revealed the formation of a junta within the military, the opposition failed to defend democracy. The CHP went public raising questions about the timing of the disclosure of the document instead of criticizing its content, and the MHP asked, “Who is playing into whose hands?”

Both parties seem to be disturbed that the heated debates over the Kurdish initiative are no longer the top item on the agenda. The return and release of members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terror organization gave the democratization initiative momentum. The CHP and MHP toughened their discourse as a result of this momentum. The opposition not only exceeded the limits of criticism but also went beyond the limits of insult.

The similarity in the tone of the two parties is striking. They are very upset that the initiative is a state project. They argue that it is a project planned by the PKK, the AK Party and the Democratic Society Party (DTP). The opposition’s frustration increased as a result of the exaggeratedly jubilant reception PKK members received, which DTP supporters claimed was merely an expression of their joy over the silencing of arms.

The MHP’s stance can be understood to a certain extent. But the stance of the CHP leader comes as a surprise for members of the party and its intellectual deputies. Despite Baykal’s heated and voluble rhetoric, he has failed to create a wave of excitement in his group meetings. The deputies’ dispiritedness also has a negative effect on visitors who come to listen to Baykal’s speeches in Parliament. Even the special effort of visitors carefully chosen for their enthusiasm doesn’t help create excitement, let alone improve the weak applause of the crowd.

Assessing the situation, a friend of mine who is a politician said: “The opposition is in a position to criticize. But criticism is appreciated only if it contributes to a solution. Criticism is meaningless if it encourages a deadlock. Unfortunately, with this meaningless twist, the opposition is creeping toward bankruptcy.”

It seems the lack of a good opposition continues to be a chronic problem for Turkey.

Foreigners in Turkey greeting each other with their heads

Swine flu-related advice from health officials on avoiding kissing or shaking hands is effective to a certain extent. There are ways to greet people without making physical contact. But it’s not very easy to put this into effect because shaking hands has become a widely practiced culture throughout the world.

But interestingly enough, greeting people without touching cheeks is becoming increasingly popular. This is a greeting style that became popular among Turks following the 1980s but was not accepted by everyone. In fact, some people made fun of it, calling it the “clinking of horns.”

This greeting is performed by tapping heads together right over the ears without having the cheeks touch each other. Journalist colleagues have noted that an increasing number of diplomats in Turkey have begun to embrace this method.

Why did the action plan divide the media the wrong way?

The plan to undermine the AK Party and the Gülen movement, which the Taraf daily first published on June 12, has created a new polarization in the media. In the aftermath of this story, the media had become polarized over whether the document was a fake, a photocopy or a fraudulent document. But now the original document has been revealed. The document, which carries the authentic signature of Dursun Çiçek, the colonel who prepared the memorandum, points to the formation of a junta within the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). According to the document, the junta planned to seize control of the country by plotting assassinations and creating chaos through bloody dealings. It considered presenting religion as a threat and charging religious people as terrorists, accusing them of planning to carry our armed attacks. In fact, it not only considered it but even prepared an action plan for it.

A military officer who participated in the work of the junta but now regrets being involved has made a number of serious allegations. The officer who sent the original signed action plan along with other documents and information to prosecutors has said he is ready to testify in court if summoned.

According to the plan, they would mislead the public through disinformation before inciting chaos. The support of the visual and print media would be sought just like during the Feb. 28, 1997 era. The plan is filled with sentences describing how certain objectives would be achieved. For example, it mentions how certain issues would be made into news stories, how certain perceptions would be instilled and how certain atmospheres would be created.

While four months ago the media were divided over whether the document was real or fake, there is still a large number of people having a difficult time accepting the truth.

There is a joke going around about those who resist the truth: “The media became divided over the wrong issue. The division was supposed to be over who the junta would use. Or maybe this division is occurring between those who accept the truth and those who don’t.”

Correction: Democratic Left Party (DSP) deputy Harun Öztürk, with whom Today’s Zaman conducted a pleasant interview, corrected the use of an academic title when referring to him in the interview. Noting that he occasionally encounters the same error, Öztürk said: “The fact that I have taught classes at a university may be misleading. However, I do not teach with the academic title of professor. I teach with a professional career title.”

We regret any inconvenience this error may have caused Öztürk or our readers.