We are on the final day of 2014.
With all of its aspects, investigations, legislative activities, administrative measures, the most important issue of the year had been the mobilization of the government against the Gülen-led group.
Without a doubt, one of the essential features of 2015, which is a year for election, will be this struggle.
The struggle against the Gülen-led group is a necessity of a state of law and democracy. In every sense, this is a struggle against an illegitimate entity.
I would like to repeat a part of my article yesterday:
The inability to differentiate between the legitimate and illegitimate, not caring about it, succumbing to the attraction and rage of fighting the leadership and therefore cozying up to it, or even taking up a position under its wings, is not a comprehensible situation. However, keeping out of the issue does not, on its own, represent the correct choice. The legitimacy of the fight by the elected political leadership, and the organ responsible for the functioning of the state, against the illegitimate, does not mean that all the methods it uses in this fight are legitimate and correct. The political leadership, in this respect, and in respect of the democratic situation, has four weaknesses; hence five requirements…
1- In democracies, the ones, who hold the political power and legal force, are subject to the rules and supervision of the law. No case of emergency can remove these principles. No emergency precaution, in no sense, can carry the signs of emergency law and sustainability. It’s exactly the same for implementation. For example, in investigations, an inquiry display, which might shadow the personality principle of the crime and is of general/political quality, is not an acceptable situation. This type of situation amounts to a move against democracy. In the fight against the Gülen-led group, despite the existence style of the Gülen-led group, the institutions like judiciary they hid behind and corruption files, the government should be more sensitive, transparent and normative on this matter.
2- The fight against the Gülen-led group shouldn’t be compressed into the December 17-25 cases, as its being done today. Such a situation will have a “rulership fight” meaning, rather than “the restoration of the system”. Especially from the point of public opinion, contrarians and outer world, an image will be formed in that direction and this image will carry a share of legitimacy. If the situation stays as it is, the judiciary chaos will continue, and the devastation caused by the malfunctions of the change process cannot be removed. An inquiry, which will include investigations like Balyoz, Oda TV, KCK, should be activated within the provisions of law.
3- For an effective fight against the Gülen-led group, AK Party should rapidly change their attitude and expression related with the corruption files. Logically, when talking about the December 17 – 25 incidents, there is no difference in saying “there is no coup d’état, but only corruption” and “there is no corruption, but only a coup d’état”. If the political rulership manages to continue on their way by acquitting the corruption files and by cleaning out the internal decays, then their fight against the Gülen-led group, who is hiding behind those files, will be more plausible.
4- After 2007, there had been an intense cooperation between AK Party and the Gülen-led group. This situation is known to every AK Party member/supporter or opposing public opinion. Even if it’s not about the operational power and moves of the Gülen-led group, the political rulership still carries a political responsibility in this sense. AK Party has to clarify this period first of all. They are required to mention their errors and identify the steps they will take to compensate them.
5- The final deficiency and requirement is: transparency. The texture of the Gülen-led group and the danger it states should be announced to the public with all its data and statistics by the government in a general session at the TBMM (Grand National Assembly of Turkey), where the public can watch. Also, the precautions in this matter should be presented to the parliament as a “democratic action plan” and they should follow a clear policy that will provide the participation of the other political parties.
We hope it happens this way.
With our wishes for a more peaceful and hopeful year…
P.S. Suat Kınıklığıoğlu is the ex-Çankırı parliamentarian of AK Party. He had replied to my “You don’t get it” article with an article entitled “We do understand”. Mr. Suat, it seems that you want to debate. Let us debate; however, before understanding the happenings, first try to understand what I’ve said. Since you summarized (!) my words as “this operation is legitimate because of the Gülen-led group’s sins in the past”, and thus even froze the notion of legitimacy, it seems that this will be a difficult task….
