Turkey devours this kind of tension too fast, shows reaction too fast and becomes polarized over it too fast.
On one side, there are those who praise the attitude of the prime minister and consider his style as a sign of his authoritarian personality, on the other side, there are those who welcome his uprising with applause beyond their approval.
Let alone common people, even authors and journalists are subject to this fast diversification.
My ideas have not changed since I saw the images for the first time.
I did not huff and puff like others. Since the first moment to the last moment in every minute of it, I was surprised and I have found what happened in those scenes to be wrong. I wished that Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan had looked for other means to show his reaction. I wished he had left the meeting after giving information to the president or that he had controlled his reaction, emotions or that he had also showed patience to the last 20 seconds of the speech the rest of which he entirely listened.
It is quite normal to criticize the prime minister from this aspect and to expect a different kind of attitude from him, even so it is indispensable in terms of democratic manners.
However, there are two sides to the coin. The other side is impossible to underestimate and the same which got me to say the above-mentioned sentences starting with "I wish".
Yes, the other side of the coin…
It"s been on talks for many days and the sane CHP deputy president also expressed the same opinion.
The representative of the chamber of law to whom the prime minister reacted acted disrespectfully and opportunistically.
He turned the ceremony into a political show and played the politician.
To transform ceremonies into political arenas by breaching laws, exceeding the conventions and taking on the prime minister in order to give him advice and to bash him, especially when this is done by a representative of a chamber, is apparently an unacceptable thing in terms of democratic culture.
The prime minister"s impulsive action does not justify this.
But I would like to underline one issue here:
To play the shrink by pointing at the tension during the state council opening and pretending to analyze the prime minister"s identity, his personal character and labeling him with the cries of "authoritarian!" and "dictator!" is extremely an "ingenuine" and "opportunistic" attitude.
Speaking of ethical norms, can we actually conceive that a chamber president would be allowed to act like this in the USA or Europe or that the laws would provide him such a medium?
Millions of Erdogan voters and even more people now applaud the prime minister"s attitude and embrace it. Why?
The reason is simple.
For many years, Turks have been witnessing how political powers were severely criticized during handover ceremonies and how they were manipulated through ironies and insulted, for example in the cases of April 23, October 29, August 30.
To promote this reaction is due to the habit of manipulative games that is rising from the grave in this last period.
Of course, preaching and criticism today is not done through official ideology like in the previous days, but eventually it reminds of and implies it in a way.
Apart from all of this, the content of the last talks that took place in the high court openings and their function deserves a separate and serious discussion.
Also in this framework the last two talks, that of Hasim Kiliç, the president of the highest court and of Metin Feyzioglu, chairman of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations in particular (as it is an abuse and occupation of the chair) do not seem to be unrelated to the presidency elections.
It is in both handing the opposition over to the judiciary, judiciary openings and that persons who desire to become a candidate or political actor who take advantage of the chair with such an intention and in the aim which is the problematic issue that must be criticized.
The speech of Feyzioglu which clearly exceeds the limits of legal policy and which is related to actions and that of Kiliç which personalizes the attitude of the Supreme Court must be taken into account from this perspective.
It is easy to criticize the prime minister because of his style. The difficult and perhaps the essential one is to criticize that of the other. At least, both sides must be considered together.