What Next?

Dear friends, various sociologists have pointed out that the Turkish nation generally has an emotional structure that does not think about the consequences of events (unable to sufficiently establish cause-and-effect relationships). Although this emotionality is sometimes necessary, it is mostly a dangerous and harmful factor. Especially in our age, where mass communication tools are highly effective and widespread, it makes the entire society susceptible to manipulation. In fact, there is even a saying, ‘Start like a Turk, finish like an Englishman.’ Building on this, I would like to ask the question, ‘What about later?’ Let us begin with the concept of nation.

When you distort and twist the concept of nation, all that remains is an expression of ethnic origin. However, nationalism, as we understand it today, is a concept that must be considered within the context of nation-states that emerged in Europe in the 17th century. The concept of nationhood that Atatürk adopted when founding the Republic of Turkey, based on the bond of citizenship, was a reflection of the ‘awareness of nationhood’ that had been neglected in the Ottoman Empire, and was the result of his vast historical knowledge and analysis.

Approaching the concept of nation as equality at the level of ethnic identities leads to the severing of the pillars on which the nation-state structure is based. When the nation-state collapses, what remains are communities of people with ethnic identities that have lost their statehood. These communities either evolve into a federal structure with regional administrative organisation and a different state formation, or into independent states. Both are structures that fall far short of the economic, military, and political power and potential of the nation-state. The realisation of new organisational structures usually follows destructive social processes.

The events of the past five years in the Middle East, in particular, demonstrate the importance of being a nation-state and seeing the bigger picture. If the Turkish Republic's constitution were not a nation-state constitution, the US ambassador's threat to the nation-state, made in a manner unbefitting diplomatic courtesy, would not have been a major issue. However, the US Ambassador did not merely express his opinion; he committed the crime of violating the constitution of the country in which he was stationed. In such cases, the mildest response would have been to summon the person in question to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and issue a warning. But nothing was done.

At the same time, a political process that everyone in Turkey described in different ways was underway, and a commission had been established in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey on this issue. The inadequacy of the principle of ‘alternative information,’ one of the fundamental requirements of democracy, ensured that the reactions of society on this issue remained weak in terms of content. It was as if a one-sided propaganda mechanism was at work. The negotiations taking place behind the scenes of the symbolic disarmament of a terrorist organisation that had been a scourge on the Turkish Republic for nearly 40 years were causing unease among large segments of society.

Instead of understanding the unease and providing information to alleviate it, efforts to normalise the bloody leader of the terrorist organisation appearing as a party to the negotiations with the state only deepened concerns. The question of where the YPG, the Syrian branch of the terrorist organisation equipped with modern military weapons by the US, stands in this process remains unanswered. This situation gives credence to certain concerns.

In this environment, the CHP's participation in the commission, having emerged first in the recent local elections, caused a rift in opposition circles. Were the comments made based on insufficient information, or did the CHP struggle to develop a satisfactory communication strategy on this issue? I would like to answer this question by stating that it is wrong to look for a single culprit for what went wrong. A doctor cannot blame the patient for dying because the medicine did not work.

At this point, I would like to continue without naming the political process that is being carried out. I must point out that I perceive the establishment and working methods of the commission as an attempt to impose a solution on society. I argue that what should have been done is to establish a commission in accordance with the legislation in force, as required by the principle of the rule of law. Failing to do so and giving a name to a process that is fraught with uncertainty is tantamount to telling the public a fairy tale they are expected to believe.

On the other hand, I observe that a commission established with an approach that bypasses the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, which represents national sovereignty, under executive pressure, and excludes civil society organisations (such as associations of martyrs' and veterans' relatives) that should be involved in the process, does not sit well with the majority of the public.

Therefore, unlike others, I criticise not the CHP's presence in this commission, but the fact that its assessments of the commission process have not been heard. I should also note that I find the CHP's statements on the participation of civil society organisations in the commission to be positive. We can say that this problematic approach to the establishment of the commission has negatively affected the social support needed for the process.

While the ruling party continues its efforts to consolidate its support base, it is widely discussed in political circles that it is seeking different alliances. There is a strong perception in society that the operations carried out to undermine the social support behind the opposition are political rather than legal, and the ruling party is struggling to combat this perception.

There was a wrongful practice in the FETÖ conspiracies that all lawyers agreed on. The arrest warrant was turning into a premeditated punishment. Today, we see a similar situation in the operations carried out against local administrators affiliated with the CHP. Administrators whose arrests cannot be legally justified are becoming victims of a political punishment mechanism through the cooperation between the executive and judicial branches. I believe that the ruling party's stance here aims not only to undermine the CHP's popular support as the main opposition party, but also to reduce its effectiveness in the ongoing process. I believe that this is because the ruling party has different expectations from the process.

The country is facing forest fires on an unprecedented scale. It should not be overlooked that the response to the fires as a natural disaster has been severely inadequate. Three factors are particularly important here. The first is organisational shortcomings, the second is a lack of personnel, and the third is a lack of equipment. Each of these factors could be discussed separately and would be the subject of several articles in their own right.

A scandal that erupted recently overshadowed the economic crisis, the fires, and the commission I mentioned above. Faced with this surprising series of events, which erupted as a diploma scandal, the government had two options: either to enforce the law and take the necessary measures to the end, or to deny it. The government chose the second option, because the consequences of the first could have been very serious. In a country, every official document is considered a concrete manifestation of sovereignty. This is where the terrifying dimension of the incident begins.

National sovereignty appears to have been usurped through forged documents. This does not resemble a problem that can be easily swept under the rug. We are approaching a period of chaos where everything stemming from the state's very existence as a state is open to question. There is a high likelihood that this is rooted in a reckoning with the Republic of Turkey. Neither the ruling party, the opposition, nor the people can emerge victorious from such a reckoning. We can only say that the big states that are capable of orchestrating this process will be happy to see the destruction of the nation-state, which they see as a threat. When all the pieces are put together, it seems that the time has come to ask the question that has never been asked. What next?

At this stage, it is necessary to see that it is not possible to get out of the turbulence the country is in with the agenda of a single political view. Perhaps at this point, there is a need for a ‘Turkey Alliance’ that all patriots can rally behind. Is it possible to establish a Turkey Alliance where no one considers themselves more valuable than the country, and no one considers others less valuable than themselves? It must be possible, otherwise I do not think there is a way out.

Sometimes I feel as though I am living in a fairy tale, in a surreal country. In this country, camels become town criers, and since no one asks for diplomas, it does not seem strange that fleas become barbers. In the end, three apples fell from the sky, and all three were seized.