No matter what subject is being discussed, criticized and worried about, we have passed an indicative period in Turkey’s history.

Following the transformation, we are speaking of a 10-year period, in which laicism was democratized, the Kurdish issue has seen the light of resolution, and the democratization and the growth curve continuously increased….

There are various factors that made this possible.

One of them was the new phase in Turkey’s modernization tale.

A phase, where the actors who were accepted as the “circle” of the community had come to power, where power and opportunity translocations were experienced, and where the political center had been restructured.

This phase always carried the sparks spread by the contact of two different great communities, who are tense with each other, and the secular and conservative tissues. When observed from the point of these sparkings, the indicative factor of this transformation story on the rulership level was the supervision fight.

For the newcomers, for new rulerships, supervising the political field was not only possible by pushing back the actors there, but also by the change in that field or that field’s complete fortification for their benefits.

Both of them happened.

AK Part both attempted to change this field and fortified it.

The fortification had been actualized by the power concentration and usage appropriately to the traditions.

Centrist mentality had been reinforced in an other hand in the same direction.

In the past two years, there was fortification more than transformation on the table of the country, and, the problems caused by this had been revealed. The centralization, intensification and individualization of the “rulership”, which is being emphasized frequently in this column, are included in these problems.

It’s beneficial to repeat;

The new political center, which attempted to deactivate the autonomous rulership focuses of the “old regime” surrounding the politics, had advanced towards a direction that subjugates every institution and function to itself, and, that cannot tolerate the idea of autonomy even in the communal field. Being dependent on politics and political rulership is on the top of the list of new problems, which we frequently identify as authoritativeness and partizanization.

Today, we are face to face with the disturbance of these malfunctions, and today, this situation is confronting us as the crisis of a critical patriarchal politics style.

There are three variables in front of us that will designate the answer .

The course of the external conjuncture, from economy to politics, and it’s effects on consistency….

The route of the Resolution Process or Kurdish issue….

The path that will be taken by AK Party as the sole dominant party…..

It wouldn’t be realistic to talk about a beyond-uncertainty situation related with the first variable.

As for the second one; it will be shaped directly by the vote rates of HDP in the upcoming elections. However, from this angle, the trajectory is positive, the point arrived at in the Kurdish issue is now beyond harboring it’s own resolution and is representing being the strongest bridge between Turkey and democracy.

As much as the political rulership is the point in question for the third variable, the question, independent from the possibility of whether they will achieve the constitutional majority in the upcoming elections, is;

Will AK Party continue their fortification policies in the political field, or, will they steer towards the democratic restructuring of this field together with the new institutionalization period?

This choice is not only related with Turkey, but also, it will be related with AK Party’s future.

For a critical democratic jump in the Kurdish issue, the softening and encircling expression, transparency against the corruption claims and a merit-based government tissue, the restructuring of the political field is necessary and it will upgrade AK Party and Turkey to another level. 

If not, the country will be roasted within tensions and legitimacy crises.

AK Party members/supporters should not forget this;

Having no political alternative is not a guarantee for any dominant party. The disturbance of dominant political parties is indexed on time and time’s spirit, not political rivalry.

Likewise, there were almost no real democratic political rivalry in our country (other than a couple exception periods).

Political life flowed by the pursuit of the consistency periods, where a single political party was generally dominant in a pluralist system, and the inconsistency periods, where those dominant parties started to get tired and smaller.

DP, or the Democratic Party's, story was like this until the coup. AP (Adalet Party), or the Justice Party’s story is like this, they dwindled and their rival grew within them. Likewise, ANAP (Anavatan Party), or the Motherland Party ’s, which replaced AP, condition…

The nominator in politics is the future, not the past.