Extreme politicization, polarization and states of confrontation mean all discussions become instrumentalized.

One example of this is the debating of many political, societal and cultural issues these days in Turkey on the basis of whether it is beneficial or damaging to the political leadership, and by pointing the finger at one party, or even one politician, when it comes to any new initiative or situation, irrespective of whether it is positive or negative.

This picture, without doubt, is problematic in regard to both the prevailing political mindset, and in that it bears traces of a post-Kemalist flavor to an extent.

Such a picture only paves the way for an already impotent opposition to become even more impotent, and leaves it outside the political fold. It fuels a crude opposition that is formed on the basis of protest and general values that lack suggestions, difference, hope and alternatives. In a way this type of politicization actually becomes an instrument that leaves it outside the political fold.

Try listing Turkey’s problems one after the other…

You will see that the trend behind every single issue consists of a relationship between the political leadership and the entity or person affected by the problem, and a clash or dialogue. There is no opposition involvement and no action by the opposition to make sense of the issues at stake, or establish links with the persons or entities affected by the problems…

This applies to the Kurdish problem and the Alevi issue as well.

Opposition political parties, and even opposition intellectuals, politicize the issues by their absolute disbelief in solutions to problems. The primary reason for this is their taking up positions and conducting analyses, which are centered on their obsession with the political leadership. This “obsession” denies them the opportunity to comprehend different issues and think of solutions to them.

The method of debate adopted by some opposition circles with regard to the reconciliation process is a clear example of this… This method of debate is based on the claim that the Kurdish problem cannot be solved by the AK Parti (Justice and Development Party). This tendency to intertwine criticism of the AK Parti with their negative expectations regarding a solution to the Kurdish problem reeks strongly of a fundamentalist point of view, and a new type of positivism that has “forgotten the difficulties; the situation and encounters; and the actual expanding of the scope of rights through interaction.”

The same point of view prevails with regard to the Alevi problem. The opposition point of view that continues to prevail is not related to the demands of Alevis but with its power. Even in this regard, the object of focus of the opposition is not the Alevis but the conservatives.

In the context of such a situation, it wouldn’t be wrong to talk of a type of depoliticization, which has resulted from extreme and sick politicization.

It is clear that the opposition will expend its energy on self destructing unless it starts looking at this side of the coin as well. 

Contrary to expectations, such types of instrumentalization harm the opposition and opposition stance more than it hurts the leadership.

Nonsense such as “the Ankara elections were fraudulent. If they hadn’t been then the CHP (Republican People’s Party) would have won those elections” are presented as political analysis and suggestions due to the existence of such a situation. Stances such as “the fight between the leadership and the community (The Fethullah Gülen-led community) is an issue between two former partners and is of no concern to us” and blurred points of view such as “the community must be good and a civilian organization since it opposes the political leadership” in such circumstances results in a mentality that pushes them further away from politics and reality.  

This climate becomes so pervasive at times that even a hit-man like Ogün Samast tries to benefit from it. The statements intended to gain something from an impossible situation made by people like Samast even leads to the instrumentalization of the Hrant Dink case; and is closely linked to this existing climate… This creates the third front polluting this case.