Corner-catching in the depths of politics

Dear friends, our country has experienced one of the biggest disasters in its history. While only one month has passed since the disaster, the fact that the agenda of the country has suddenly turned from the post-earthquake failures and the problems that the disaster victims continue to experience to politics has triggered social reactions as well as wounding consciences. In this social turbulence, the discussions on political calculations for the elections suddenly took precedence over the criticisms that the government was late and ineffective in responding to the disaster. The Latin term "cui bono", used in such cases, means "in whose favour". In short, it is used to explain that those responsible for an event are those who benefit from the event in question (1). 

For example, in order to question who benefits from the dissemination of false information on social media, it is necessary to consider who benefits from this action. Of course, this is not an approach that leads us to the absolute truth, it is just a way of thinking. I leave it aside by stating that I want to use it in the issues we will discuss today.

First of all, I must say that I am not very happy to write such an article while the troubles and pains of the people living in the disaster area have not been alleviated and the hearts of millions of people who constantly think about them have not been relieved. While there has been a social reaction on the country's agenda over the government's failed and inadequate disaster management, why and how did it happen that the group, which is a party to this social reaction, turned against each other within itself? In whose/whose favour are these events? Unless we find answers to these questions, it seems difficult to perceive what we are facing. The fact that a large region of the country continues to experience the disaster and its effects in such a process, while also experiencing the election environment, reminds us that life must somehow continue. Because it is clear that we need this in order to look to the future with hope. 

Is Politics the Boogeyman?

Everyone can find and read about the meaning of the word politics. To summarise it in a way that everyone can understand; politics exists and should exist everywhere that is social. There are also thinkers who trace the origin of the political bond in society back to the family. However, the idea that sees or wants to show politics as a field of endeavour of only an elite in society, a protected business area, transforms it into a structure in which political parties are instrumentalised by certain interest groups. In any institutionalised and developed society in the world, it is not possible to see such nonsense as excluding a social problem from the sphere of political debate, and it is not possible to see this nonsense being supported by the political power. At this point, the question "what could be the reasons for political powers to avoid political criticism?" needs to be answered. 

Who could have lost their minds enough to say that there is no social problem when there has been a major disaster and tens of thousands of lives have been lost? Especially when a month has passed since the disaster, there are still problems in the coordination of aid, there are allegations that the Red Crescent, one of the most trusted non-governmental organisations of the society, is selling aid materials, on what grounds can it be claimed that these are not social problems? Under normal circumstances, a rational political power would draw lessons for restructuring from all these criticisms. However, if the government wants to prevent discussions by portraying politics as a bogeyman, it is necessary to say "cui bono". 

Super League matches resumed last weekend. However, this start sparked another controversy for the government. First Fenerbahce fans and then Beşiktaş fans chanted "Government Resign" slogans in the stands. In fact, if the government had not emphasised the issue at all, perhaps there would not have been so much controversy. However, with the ludicrous claim that "sport is being used for politics", the government sent the message that it would not tolerate this simple tribune protest, which in no way constituted a criminal offence. I am one of those who think that the main purpose of this attitude of the government is to prevent possible protests in the future. Otherwise, no sane government would attempt this nonsense of creating a crime out of such a simple incident. 

In any case, the government reacted to this issue not directly, but through its partner. However, the dose of the reactions pushed the limits of reason and logic to such an extent that people had difficulty in making sense of what was going on. The government may have brought such a process to the agenda for two reasons. Firstly, the government's unsuccessful and inconsistent management of disasters and the controversy over the Red Crescent may have put it in a politically difficult situation and a change of agenda was needed. The second is the desire to intimidate the society against possible reactions on the eve of the election process. 

Although this may not seem to be a very consistent approach in terms of political communication, for a government that uses state means fearlessly and to the fullest extent to the extent that the law is challenged, it may serve to keep its own electorate together as it enters the home stretch. Another effect may be the attempt to prevent the social opposition from reproducing itself through the demonisation of politics in society. 

What is happening in the Millet Alliance?

With the government's reaction to the protest slogans in the stands, the agenda of the disaster area was pushed to the background. However, when the agenda started to be formed on the government again, this time another political event set the agenda of the country again. IYI Party President Meral Akşener, who signed the memorandum of the meeting after the candidate selection meeting of the Nation Alliance, made a press statement with a style that can be considered quite harsh in terms of politics and an approach that pushes the limits of political courtesy after meeting with the authorised bodies of her party. When it was first founded, I was one of those who believed that the IYI Party, under the leadership of Meral Akşener, could fill the gap created by the AKP government in the centre-right. However, this latest development has shaken my convictions on this issue. It seemed that the IYI Party had chosen to embark on a path that was far from representing the centre-right thought. If we go through Meral Akşener's statements, it is seen that the event that caused the Good Party to come to a crossroads was the objection to the candidacy of CHP President Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.

First of all, it should be emphasised that it was clear months ago that the Good Party supported the name Mansur Yavaş and the CHP was in full agreement on Kılıçdaroğlu's candidacy. In such a situation, the CHP leader, who is the major partner of the alliance, had stated that he would seek the consensus of the six leaders until the last moment. Under these conditions, the Alliance was signing very important consensus texts, giving the appearance of an unprecedented unity in Turkish political history. However, whatever happened happened at the last meeting, perhaps the pre-existing crack turned into a major rupture and led to a separation. The text signed by the six leaders after the meeting held on 2 March 2023 appears to be the last agreed text. Afterwards, if she could not get approval from the authorised organs of her own party, Akşener was expected to use a language seeking reconciliation with a calmer tone. But this did not happen, the door was almost slammed. It would not be right to think that a skilful politician like Akşener did not know this. So let us try to understand why this happened.

Before asking "Cui bono", it is necessary to clarify one issue. I am one of those who believe that utilising surveys in candidate selection may produce unfavourable results. First of all, we are faced with a government that dominates the media and all the state apparatuses that can be used in this regard. I mean, why do the names that stand out in the polls stand out? Could it be that the government wanted these names to come to the fore? Secondly, a poll is a technique, not a method. It only takes a snapshot. However, in societies with complex systems, great changes can occur even overnight. In other words, you cannot claim that the results of the survey you conducted today to identify candidates will be valid on election day, approximately 2.5 months later. Thirdly, no one should be cynical about the fact that the government has a media and social media power that can literally knock down the candidate you have identified through a poll. So why the emphasis on "the candidate who will be elected"? However, all politicians know that there is no ground for such an approach in politics. Politics requires being able to explain the candidate to the public. If you nominate a candidate on the basis of faith or ethnicity and then win, this can only be a Pyrrhic victory. While the unification of the social opposition is the goal, who benefits from the opposition's internal division? 

At first glance, the People's Alliance seems to be the most profitable party. However, looking at the different dimensions of the issue, the IYI Party did not seem to adopt the "We will get back 418 billion dollars" and "gang of five" discourses of the CHP, the senior partner of the Millet Alliance. It preferred to remain silent on this issue. In other words, Kılıçdaroğlu's defeat as the opposition candidate in a possible election seems to be in the interest of the capital groups that have close relations with the AKP. We do not know whether there were any meetings between the IYI Party and these capital groups. However, it seems difficult to say that the track record of conservative parties in terms of money laundering consists of preferences for the benefit of the people in the "ideological context" (regardless of the singular examples experienced). In addition, I think that Kılıçdaroğlu should explain to the public how he went from seeking the consensus of six leaders to the point where he considers five leaders sufficient. 

It is useful to draw attention to one more point here. The fact that important figures within the IYI Party made statements that do not match Akşener's harsh style also shows that the statement did not satisfy everyone in the party. At first, I thought that the negotiations in the authorised bodies might have exceeded Akşener's will. However, I must express that my opinion on this issue has changed. To be clear, the call made to Mansur Yavaş and Ekrem İmamoğlu does not comply with political ethics, nor does it fit the unifying politician profile that Akşener has drawn so far. It is still very early, but when the intra-party negotiations reach a stage, the departure of important names from the party or the announcement that the party will take part in the Millet Alliance again may be on the agenda. But in any case, it has not been good for both the IYI Party and the country. Beyond the presidential election, we are faced with a negative picture that may affect the arithmetic of the Parliament. If the Good Party faces a threshold problem in the election, I think the AKP will be the party that will benefit the most. Even one day is a very long time in politics. Even if not everything happens, there is still an opportunity for some things to improve. Everyone should come to their senses.

Conclusion

We are going through a period in which the political, economic and institutional capacity of the country has declined considerably. The recent disaster has exposed this reality to all of us. A large part of the society is aware of this. The fact that the choices made by those who are not aware of it, based on small political interests, will mortgage the future of the society and the country, perhaps irreversibly, must now be accepted by everyone. In this process, it has become vitally important for us to realise that all the discussions at the political level are part of the struggle for a corner in the depths of politics, to understand that the bond of citizenship is the most important reason for us to live together and to stay away from polarisation. Someone has to explain why people who were joking with each other before Akşener's statement became enemies after the statement. 

It is high time that we ask ourselves the question "Cui bono" about the events. Because this question will raise awareness and encourage people who feel that they have not been fortunate in the game they have been playing for years to open a new deck of cards and play with untricked cards. Either the cards will be redistributed on the basis of fair distributional relations and constitutional citizenship, or we will continue to play a game we know we will lose over and over again with rigged cards. People who are able to ask the question of which choice favours whom will be able to reflect the power and responsibility of being the People at the ballot box. I would like to end with the words of one of my favourite songs by Alan Parsons. If your whole life depends on the arrival of a good card, the game never ends.

(1) https://evrimagaci.org/cui-bono-yasanan-bir-olayin-kimin-yararina-oldugunu-sormak-neden-onemlidir-10774