Every kind of alteration is the task and the result of “interaction”.

Turkey also had advanced in many incidents in this way. The internal and external dynamics had overlapped, fed and triggered each other.

Between these two dynamics, in the times and places when the interaction was limited, as it is today, the alteration had also become limited.

However, for an alteration to be permanent in a country, the alteration oppression and inputs will not be sufficient. The actualization of an alteration, which is between the communal groups and institutions, can only be possible with the “alterations that had been experienced within every communal group and institution”.

In this sense, where do we stand?

When you read the articles of intellectual actors, or anyone from the opposing segment, no matter if they have a party or not, or whoever from that group gives an interview, you can see that all of them are telling you that the country had become polarized more than ever. They cite this based on the attitude, which represents the “political right” and “behavior that is suitable to the neighborhood” and which sits on top of the new political discoveries.

Is it really like this?

The “short memory” which forgot about the; people who were dancing while playing their pots after the 1960 coup, state of civil war before 1980 when 5000 people had lost their lives by means of gunfire, Maraş and Çorum massacres, pre and post 1980 coup, deadly right – left polarization, annihilator Kurdish policy, murders of the 90s, Susurluk wave, civil war in February 28 which had been conducted even against a Muslim store owner; can think like this.

This might become a conjuncture that feeds thinking like this.

As a matter of fact, the rulership’s language, which had become sterner after the Gezi incidents, turned a deaf ear to the new demands, partially had been nationalized and had become rightist to a considerable extent. And in doing so, the broken alliances, which had ended within this frame, and the polarization that is being experienced became obvious.

The moves made by the rulership, which are centered on their own values after solving the military and representative democracy issues to a considerable extent, are a new data. However, another data is; the opportunity, of discovering micro-politics elements like the environment and body, provided to the communal opposition following the guardianship system’s collapse.

When all these are taken into consideration, it could be said that Turkey has entered a new period, is advancing with new pursuits and positions in a construction period, and all these are increasing the tensions. All these can indicate; the communal groups’ state of becoming introverted, a tension picture in the sense of communal synthesis, and the re-shrining of being an opposition against a rulership in the intellectual world. The opposition personalizing their analyses against the claims of “the rulership is becoming personalized” can be a factor, which lowers the caliber.

However, in order to talk about a polarization, which history had never seen before, a person should first be merciful to himself/herself.

In this sense, the past 10 years’ story is quite strong.

If we are to observe this story based on the internal equilibrium changes within the groups and institutions, this strength can be understood better. Likewise, the alteration had happened and is happening between these and by the virtue of them

Then let us especially underline those alteration areas;

Islamic area, military area and Kurdish area…

Every crisis that had happened in Turkey regarding the matters like Imam-Hatip schools, headscarf, had actually pointed at the alteration in the Islamic field, and every alteration had happened in the direction of “the laicism’s democratization”. Turkey had created a secular-modern “new communal model”, which involves the religious field, while it had been conveyed by the Islamic segment.

The Islamic segment had made peace with the secular world by preserving their identity. Within this frame, it is clear that AK Party had played an engine role and did their communal, political and even transformer duty, which had risen within the Islamic segment and stood against the “Islamification of politics”.

As for the military, this is the situation:

As an institution that is interfering in politics, the military had always experienced tensions and arguments within. Up to this day, these arguments and divergences were generally grounded over the military’s interference style in politics. Today, the “idea of democracy” is also forming one of the essential axes within the military. The democracy idea came into play, not only from the point of politics-military relations, but also from the point of the Turkish Armed Forces’ own internal definition and the soldiers’ mentalities. Even though it’s only at the beginning point, or is fragile, this development is new and extremely important.

Now, as for the Kurdish area….

This area is creating an internal alteration in a social sense (urbanization, individualization, differentiation). There is no doubt about that. The Southeast’s sociological story is pointing at a sharp transformation. Now, the peace process is in action. This process is the result of 10-year-long policies and the expansion of the freedom areas.

One of the most important functions of the peace process is to show that the pluralism in the communal field can also happen in the political field.

In order to comprehend and advance towards tomorrow, remembering all of this is as important as struggling with the new issues.