Is violence on the rise?
by
MÜMTAZ’ER TÜRKÖNE

The protesters wanted to voice their criticisms and concerns about the current university system. The incidents progressed as one would expect of such protests; the police did not allow protestors beyond the barricade and the protesters attacked the police with the sticks of the placards they were carrying. The police, however, used disproportionate force. Some students were injured by the police violence and tear gas. The most tragic outcome of the skirmish was that a 19-year-old pregnant young girl lost her baby as a result of this violence.

This incident sparked debates and the public quickly polarized over a very delicate matter. The violent incidents of the 1970s claimed the lives of some 5,000 young people. As many people still have bad memories of the widespread violent incidents of the past, they were concerned that these protests at Dolmabahçe might be a prelude to a new a wave of violence. On the other hand, many militant figures from those violent incidents are today working as columnists at several newspapers. Empathizing from their own past activism, they lent their support to these youths who clashed with the police. The girl who lost her baby and the young people who were traumatized by the police violence made a dreadful scene. The application of disproportionate force by the police attracted widespread public criticism. But many failed to discuss the rage and violence that these young people brought to the streets.

The same group and even the same people staged another protest at the Ankara University faculty of political science on Wednesday, which clarified what was going on. Republican People’s Party (CHP) Secretary-General Süheyl Batum and parliamentary Constitution Commission Chairman Burhan Kuzu were the targets of a violent protest by a group of students at a conference to which they were invited by the student community. The protesters prevented Batum from speaking. They showered Kuzu with eggs. These distinguished politicians, who are professors of constitutional law, were disgusted by the violence that they were subject to. Batum even described the protest as fascist tyranny despite the fact that the students were members of a marginal leftist group.

Collectivist students

These marginal leftist groups are called “student collectives,” consisting of groupings of marginal leftist groups at universities. These radical groups with leftist ideologies are extremely marginalized as they have difficulty in recruiting support from the public. It is for this reason they tend to unite their forces in order to draw attention to their cause.

The young people who gathered together on this platform tend to adopt the Latin American “focalist” armed struggle ideology. They have no connections with the anti-globalization mass movements widespread around the world. They still adore Che Guevara as their political idol. They adopt violence as a political method.

Political violence is a form of political advertising. In order to promote yourself or show your power or draw attention and thereby instill fear in some groups and recruit the support of others, you commit homicide and bomb crowded places. Or you rush to the streets to clash with police or burn buildings and cars, at the same time, making your sympathizers grow accustomed to the violence. All these actions are carried out for publicity purposes. There will always be people, like some columnists of the Radical daily, who are willing to lend support to these publicity stunts. This political advertising technique is based on the theory of armed propaganda. As it was a legacy of the Cold War era, not many people will remember it. This form of socialism argues that poor people cannot undertake a revolution on their own. Brave and adventurous young people take weapons and start a war. In this way, the public can overcome their fear and follow the lead of these young people. Thus, university students are pioneers in this cause. Organizations that adopt Che Guevara as their symbol stick to this theory blindly. Violence is violence. It does not matter if you fire randomly here or there or you create an occasion for a young pregnant girl to lose her baby. Is the publicity enough? All of these are considered as a gain for the violent political advertising effort.

The strategy functions as follows: Student collectives are strictly organized for these protests and they make comprehensive preparations. Protesters are divided into three groups. The lead group orchestrates all of actions by the protesters. The militants at the center provoke the police to use force. Sympathizers are prepared for future actions. They attack police officers with the placard sticks. At that moment, police officers believe that they are justified in using force against the mob, which is just the very intention by the protesters. Chaos and clamor start to rule the scene. Eventually, they give the impression that innocent students who just wanted to express their views were subject to excessive force by the police. If they can secure media interest then their original intention is fulfilled. When the press gives significant coverage to the incident, they are successful.

My generation wasted its youth amid such mass clashes. When we see a young person raging to attack a police officer with a placard stick, we know very well what is going on behind the scenes. This is a case where you must put a strait jacket on that young person so that s/he does not do any harm to himself/herself or any other person and s/he can receive psychological counseling. These cases emerge in the company of mass hysteria. Such a person is normal during his/her individual life. The dynamics of the group allows him/her the opportunity to express the violence within. To make better sense of this mass pathology, we need to recall a scene from May Day festivities several years ago: While her group was clashing with the police, a young girl was attacking the flowers in the park with a stick. Those who gather around a marginal leftist ideology hand over the reins of such aggressive feelings that they find hard to repress. Moreover, when their aggression is repressed by force, they attain a certain sense of legitimacy.

A matter of mass pathology

This is not a political problem. Their purpose is not to influence politics or express demands. It is rather a matter of mass pathology.

My diagnosis is based on my experiences from 30 years ago. I, too, was targeted by one of the violent attacks from these young people during a conference at a university. A young person cut me short in order to read a statement uninvited, and I gave my microphone to him so that he can talk more comfortably. He took no need. When his speech ended, seven or eight people started to shout slogans. When things went out of control, they assumed the role of victims. They resort to the very old method of exerting violence and claiming victims when they are subject to violence in return. What about the intellectual background to these actions? When they talk about their views for five minutes, they loop back to the beginning. We can do nothing but feel pity for them.

“Those who throw eggs today may throw stones tomorrow,” said CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu about the eggs hurled at Kuzu. Batum, who could not deliver his speech because of protests, opted to ascribe fascism to these young people -- something which would anger them further.

These comments from the two top CHP executives are an answer to the concerns about the likelihood of student activism making a comeback. No, it will start again. Contrary to what the columnists who voluntarily promote these tyrannical, fascist methods say, the country is guided by common sense. We all have seen this film before. If you condemn the egg throwers today, no one will dare throw stones tomorrow and the likelihood of their firing bullets will be eliminated altogether.