Being Determined

Let's say there are 100 of us. Let's split into three more or less equal groups. Let's say one of us goes out on a limb and is on his own. Let's make a choice between us. We're going to choose someone to represent us, for example. 

The rule is that whoever gets at least one more than half of the valid votes wins. If there is no winner in the first round, the voting is repeated among the top two. Again, according to the rule, the one who receives at least one more than half of the valid votes wins.

We put the ballot box in, everyone made their choice, Ali from the first group got 37 votes, Veli from the second group got 35 votes, and Hüseyin from the third group got 27 votes. Mahmut also cast a vote for himself, but his vote was only one.

No one's vote is more than half of the valid votes. We have to put the ballot box in the middle for the second time, we will vote for the first two again. 

In the meantime, Ali and Veli are lobbying and making promises. Ali says if you elect me I will give you a carrot, Veli is poor, he doesn't have any carrots to give, he only offers hope. If you elect me, I will represent you better. 

Hüseyin and Mahmut are sad. Because they have no right to participate in the second round of elections. Mahmut is completely resentful, he openly says that he will not participate in the vote. Those who voted for Hussein are also upset and very upset, but also a little angry. They don't think anyone will represent them. Obviously they are going to boycott the vote too.

The vote is taken again and the ballot box is opened. 

This time Ali gets 39 votes, the carrot has worked, he has increased his votes slightly. Veliye got 35 votes, the same as in the first round. Except for 2 of those who voted for Hussein in the first round, the rest sulked, boycotted, didn't vote for anyone. Mahmut, as he said, did not vote, neither for himself nor for anyone else. He was already sulking.

Ali says he won, he is happy. Veli is sad. He will object, but the rule is clear, 50% of the valid votes+1 person.

This is the worst case scenario. A boycott of the election.

Total turnout is 74 people, proportionally Ali wins with 52.7% of the valid votes, Veli loses with 47.3%.

This is math. At this stage, there is no use lamenting anymore. 

If Veli can convince the disgruntled, at least some of them, maybe he will win the election. Ali's vote is actually 39 out of 100 people, so from another perspective, there are 61 people who don't want Ali. 

But Ali wins the election. Why? Because people sulk and don't participate in the vote.

So what should be done to prevent this from happening?

First of all, we need to make it clear to people that if they don't participate in the voting, it will favor the one who is ahead in the first round. The difference will be even bigger if we multiply it by a percentage. Math! 

Yes, the frontrunner, or whoever is in the lead at the moment, can use his or her resources to hand out carrots, and some people may fall for these carrots and switch sides for their own personal benefit. 

But a group of people not participating in the elections is bigger than the damage done by those few people. 

If this is an election about the fate of the country, and it is, then it is important to explain to people the responsibility of participating in the election. This is the first priority.

The second is to listen to people, to find out what they want and if they are reasonable, to find the right solutions for everyone's needs and explain them one by one.

If Veli can convince at least 5 more people out of the 26 who did not participate in the second round of voting and get them to vote for him, he will win the election with 40 votes. Can you imagine, only 5 votes!

Of course, the goal should be to get all 26 who did not participate in the voting, that is, all those who voted for Hussein in the first round, or in fact all the other votes, and Ali's votes as well. 

And this can only happen with a common mind. With a common solution to everyone's needs. You need to gather everyone around you as much as possible. But not like in Hodja's story, where the hodja tells everyone that you are right too, but by finding the common denominator in everyone's demands. I exclude unreasonable requests from the category.

But above all it is necessary to ensure maximum participation in the voting!

And this can only be done with hope, with trust. By making people feel that they are all citizens of this country. Not by segregating, not by marginalizing. It is by making everyone feel that they are equal citizens.

Let's concentrate on what people want. What do people living together in a country actually want? 

I think first of all they want to live humanely. 

Then they want prosperity. They want to have a good income. Not just to live for free, but to earn a decent income. Nobody wants to struggle to make ends meet. They want a balanced income distribution. They want equal opportunity for everyone. They want equal job opportunities. 

They want respect for their culture, traditions and customs. They want respect for their beliefs and lifestyles. They want a life without oppression. They want a free life.

They want law and justice within the country. They do not want to be pushed around. They want trust, they want to trust in justice.

But they also want a safe life. A secure future! They want to live without worries about the future. 

When there are threats to the survival of the country, all economic problems are forgotten. They unite. In order to stand against threats, the country must be strong. 

The international conjuncture is very complicated these days, there is a deep cold war going on in the world. On the one hand, there is the hidden energy sharing competition between Russia, Europe and the United States behind the hot war in Ukraine, and even America's efforts to break up Russia; on the other hand, there is the visible face of the trade war between America and China. America is afraid of China becoming a giant financial power and is doing everything it can to prevent it. But on the other hand, Russia's vast territories whet its appetite. 

Moreover, in addition to all these foreign policy moves, the reflections of America's internal power struggles on the world are also affecting the whole world. 

In the midst of America's brutal practices to dominate this world order, Turkey is trying to find the best way out of these slippery international relations in accordance with its own national interests. It has made many mistakes so far and continues to make some of them, but the world conjuncture is also very complex. It is not clear with whom and what kind of relationship to establish, the conditions change almost every day.

It is not easy to move in the right direction in this chaos. This is only possible with a strong leader. 

The fragile structure of the country's economy and the constant scratching of society's fault lines by some people prevent the country from achieving the desired level of prosperity.

Moreover, in this hazy environment, there is no shortage of traitors pursuing their personal interests, many of them clustered around the government.

In other words, while it is imperative to have a strong leader in the international arena and to make the right decisions quickly, domestically, this concentrated power presents us with some problems. First of all, the government cannot trust anyone. It is in a state of paranoia. As a result, it prefers to work only with cadres who are loyal to it. This means that merit is of secondary importance. In other words, it also means bad governance of the country, bad governance. 

The culture of subservience, on the other hand, is a culture of what I say, a culture of I know best, in other words, a culture of you know best, and since sycophancy comes to the fore, the result is both an oppressive government and a government that makes a lot of mistakes. 

When there is such a center of attraction, it is only natural that people with bad intentions gather around the government. The result is corruption, lawlessness and therefore an unfair distribution of income due to poor governance. 

So, on the one hand, there is a need for a strong leader, but on the other hand, power concentrated in one hand creates various problems. 

A leader who is not strong, i.e. a leader who makes decisions with common sense, even though it means a balanced domestic governance, a balanced distribution of income, i.e. justice and law, it seems to some as if it would create a weakness in the international arena. After all, if a leader values common sense, he will not have personal ambitions and self-righteousness. He will not be a charismatic leader. 

But is this seemingly contradictory situation actually true? 

Does common sense mean weakness in the international arena? 

Can't international relations, which require agility in the current conjuncture, be conducted with common sense? 

Perhaps I should add to this the question "how true are nimble relations in the international arena?". 

I have written before that the way to exist in the international arena is power and unity. And by power, I don't mean power concentrated in one hand, but the power that comes from unity. I also said that you will have plans for the century, long-term plans whose principles never change. Whoever comes to power will not be able to change this long-term plan. So my answer to the last question is clear. There is no need to be a belly dancer in international relations. The nimbleness should be the nimbleness you need to use when there is a threat to a certain goal. Not waist agility. It's not one thing today and another tomorrow.

I think this answer also answers the other questions. When your goal is the strength of the country, not your own personal strength, but the strength of the country, and when you have a good program behind you produced with common sense, you know how to react in the international arena, and you know how to take the necessary measures against threats in a timely manner. 

The main thing is to be determined and to shout this determination in the eyes of those who seek treachery. Believe me, human beings are not that brave, and the evil-eyed states in the international arena are not that brave. When they see that you are determined, they will be forced to take a step back.

So a determined common mind is not a weakness in the international arena. On the contrary, it is a real obstacle to the ambitions of those with evil intentions because it is the strength of unity. 

As a final word, I would like to address Veli, if you want success, you must learn to be decisive. And remember, unity is strength! 

Love and regards to everyone from Moscow.