Why can't the shooters of the Fenerbahçe bus be identified?

The whys and wherefores are like flashlights that illuminate the path of our lives. No event happens without a reason. There are always whys and wherefores behind bad or good results. This is what interests me more about the events behind the Halil Umut Meler case. 

In developed western societies, individuals can act very consciously to obtain their rights and transform the democratic struggle into a collective one. Unfortunately, this is not the case with us. Individuals are not aware of their rights or are afraid. Why is this so? Sociologists, psychologists and political scientists have conducted many studies on this subject. Without using academic sources and language, let me try to answer in very plain and simple sentences.

Western societies have gone through very difficult phases in their struggle for democracy, and have paid a great price in the transition from royal regimes to republics and democracies where the people share in the governance. Indeed, people cannot easily give up gains that have been achieved through hard labor and for which they have suffered a lot. In France, the revolutions sparked by philosophers and the integration of intellectuals with the people overthrew the despotism of the palace and paved the way for a modern legal system and participatory democracy. In Eastern societies, on the other hand, traditions are seen as dogmas that are considered unchangeable and become taboo over time. They say that the West is the geography of the mind and the East the geography of the heart. Perhaps this generalization may seem harsh to you, but I believe that to a certain extent it reflects a truth.

You know, what we call reason questions. The key to science is doubt and the lightning bolts of questions that will then flash in our brains. Whereas the heart is the bottomless well of love and even surrender, the vast unknown. In Western thought there is reason and mathematics, in Eastern and Middle Eastern societies there is surrender and trust. However, faith and doubt cannot live together. Doubt is the earthquake in faith. So when you receive the good news of revelation, you are either Abu Bakr or Abu Ja'far. There are similar attitudes in Indian paganism or pluralistic forms of belief. 

Our pre-Islamic way of life as Turks is of course different. The Kagan or Khagan who convenes the Kurultai is always accompanied by his wife. Moreover, the convened Kurultai was an environment of consultation, consultation, discussion, and everyone had a say in this consultation. But over time we have moved away from this cultural and administrative richness. Although Islam does not command us to move away, we have left aside such practices that bring together the head of this state and the people it governs, which we can call 'direct democracy' in a sense. Especially during the Ottoman Empire, the oligarchic attitude restricted these rights considerably. Sultans were given irresistible powers, although not as much as kings in Western societies. Over time, a wall was built between the sultan and his subjects. The fear of God undoubtedly saved the sultans from becoming a tyrannical king, but this was essentially the case in terms of powers. 

Although our role model after the Tanzimat was Western civilization, we could not adapt to their renaissance and reform movements and the process of enlightenment for the reasons I have mentioned above. The introduction of the printing press two centuries later, the industrial revolution in the West and the political and social fluctuations created by the emerging class consciousness could not and did not have the same effect on us. As a matter of fact, even our transition to multi-party life did not come about through popular demand, but through external pressures. Despite the military revolutions that were once repeated almost every ten years and the young lives taken by the junta, efforts to develop our democracy were always insufficient. Unfortunately, democracy and the republic were not assimilated well. For this reason, when the so-called historian in a fez and tassels said, "If only the Greeks had been victorious in the National Struggle?", he was applauded by a significant mass of people who do not leave piety to anyone. Let alone the public, even our esteemed statesmen did not react to this approach. 

As a country, we have transitioned to multi-party life, in a sense democratic life, since 1946. Prior to that, in the founding years of the Republic of Turkey, single-party life was embraced more by the founders of our state. Probably our country was not yet ready for a mature democracy. Several attempts by Mustafa Kemal Pasha to transition to multi-party life were interrupted. If we recall the conditions in Europe before the Second World War, fascism had risen in Germany and Italy in the heart of Europe. Democracy was about to be shelved even in European countries. Even under these conditions, in the young Republic of Turkey, all the institutions of democratic state and social life came to life to a certain extent, albeit not completely. If we speak of a democracy in Turkey today, it is because 100 years ago Atatürk and the founders of our country did not favor the continuation of the sultanate, but believed in the ideal of democracy, which the civilized world has widely embraced.

Yes, today we are not living in the same conditions as 100 years ago. The structure of our state and our people are not the same. Today we have democracy in our country, but unfortunately we have a troubled democratic life. One should fear the despotism of the elected state. Today, the political power that holds the power in our country is simultaneously playing the role of regulator, supervisor, educator and punisher of society by encircling civil society in every part of the public sphere. In our society, individuals feel obliged to be subjected to what we call neighborhood pressure, the boundaries of which are set by the majority. If these people were ordinary citizens, maybe you could say whatever. But doesn't the situation change when the person in question is not only an individual but also a Minister of State?

For example, the Minister of State in charge of the economy tells the President about the upcoming local or global crisis. The President, not wanting to accept this crisis, directly rebuked this ministerial level person. And what happened? The minister could not even raise his voice. He did not have the courage to say anything to the rebuke. Perhaps thinking that his personal interests would suffer, he preferred to remain silent and 'swallowed' the President's rebuke. Meanwhile, no one stood up for the state minister, no one could. Because wherever there is opposition, it is immediately silenced, no matter who that opposition is. This is not only the case with the AKP, but also with most party administrations. If we cannot even see democracy within the parties, how can we expect the governments to be formed by these parties and the heads of these governments to stay within the boundaries of democratic practices in their behavior towards the people?

We know that the hadith that the one who is silent in the face of injustice is the dumb devil is being spoken, and the tongue of the one who tries to speak is cut off. Don't they call this advanced democracy, believe me, even the devil has a laughing fit when he hears this. But our people are unresponsive and silent. This is exactly what is called the culture of subservience. We must provide such an education so that our children learn from an early age not to be servants, but to be loyal to the right and the law, so that they can be Zülfikar against the oppressor. They should learn to surrender to Allah and the Qur'an, morality, virtue and conscience as much as they surrender to their sheikhs, sheikhs, leaders and chiefs. Otherwise, I believe that neither our republic nor our democracy will survive this infancy. 

Advanced democracy is possible only with free individuals and an organized society that adopts reason, science and morality as its guide. I don't know if I have explained the reasons behind the beating of a referee, which we all see but ignore. It is only when we ask why questions that the darkness will be illuminated. Since we started with football, let's finish with football. Why haven't the shooters of the Fenerbahçe bus been found yet? 

With respect and love