There is a polarization problem that everyone has been talking about. The country has been divided into north and south poles in politics, media and society and tensions have risen.
The one most accused is President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, then the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), the government and the “partisans” supporting them.
This is the accusation of those in the north pole. The aim of this column is to find out who started this polarization. The column is long but read it, you will not get bored.
My theory is:
The discussion on polarization has always increased after big events related to the country.
We experienced three big incidents to date:
1. Gezi park events
2. Parallel state coup attempt
3. The outlawed PKK terror
All three of these incidents are serious incidents threatening the existence of the state, national security (an American idiom) and whose results will cause great dangers for the country and nation.
All of these attempts were illegal, outlawed and guilty according to law.
Against these incidents you either stand in line to defend the future of your country, security of life and property of the nation or with those who started the incidents.
Is it possible to be unbiased against these events? You will find the answer at the end of the column.
Let's say some people are unbiased. Now let's look at the incidents and you decide.
The discussions on polarization started with the Gezi Park events
The discussions on polarization and dividing into camps started with the Gezi Park events. Until that date, we were in the Equatorial plane in comfort without going to the poles.
“A few innocent young people” trying to save trees from being cut and the actors, media and businessmen supporting them found Erdoğan in front of them.
They said “it is an innocent activity,” but Erdoğan said the intention behind it was different.
Later, these “innocent young people” protested in a total of 79 cities. They damaged 58 public buildings, 14 party buildings and 337 workplaces and rendered unusable 90 municipality buses, 214 private vehicles, 240 police cars and 45 ambulances. The demonstrations led to the injury of 600 police officers and 4,000 civilians.
Finally it was understood that the activities were not “innocent” but outlawed.
Supporters of the Gezi Park events said “If Erdoğan had not reacted so strongly, the events would not have aggravated so much.” As for Erdoğan, he said, “these events were already started with the intention of expansion.”
Since he gave a strong reaction to those burning and destroying cities, Erdoğan was announced as the one causing “polarization” and supporters of the Gezi Park events as those “uniting.” Is it true? Yes it is. Are they right? No they are not.
Let's look at the parallel state incident. Against those who said it was an operation on “embezzlement and theft,” Erdoğan said it was a coup attempt against the government.
His strong response was criticized saying “it was a speech excluding, discriminating and polarizing even a pious congregation.”
Were there media, politicians and businessmen supporting the parallel organization in this incident? Yes there were.
Were there the ones who remained unbiased and watched the incidents? Yes, there were. Were there people praying and cursing in the mosque, church and synagogue for the fall of Erdoğan? Yes, there were.
Finally, didn't a shadowy organization emerge that almost wiretapped the whole country, blacklisted and shared its intelligence abroad and targeted to overthrow the government?
Yes, it did. Is Erdoğan the one polarizing the country by giving the strongest response to defend the government, state and the national benefits? No, he is not. Were the ones who declared this so? Yes, they were.
The pole supporting PKK against the state
After these three waves, Erdoğan and the AK Party government which could not be overthrown, faced PKK terror as the last wave. In this fight, did all of those who were against Erdoğan do their best to support and polish the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP)? Yes, they did.
At last, did the HDP experience an explosion of votes on June 7 elections? Yes, it did. Did Erdoğan and the staff of the AK Party say that the HDP cheated everyone and became the pawn of the PKK terror organization? Yes, they did. Did they believe them? No, they didn't.
What has been the result? The PKK ended the cease-fire, invading Sur, Cizre, Silopi and Silvan, and declared full war against the government. The number of dead civilians and martyrs is heartbreaking. At last, have there been cries such as “We were cheated by [HDP Co-Chair Selahattin] Demirtaş,” screams as “We are sorry,” the interesting statement “it seems that the PKK is murderer?” Yes, there have.
Did the same people declare Erdoğan to be the one "separating Kurds and polarizing the country” before? Yes, they did.
I am summarizing the situation:
There is a fraction that hates Erdoğan and the AK Party. It is possible. Because of this hatred in each incident, they believe that they will succeed in overthrowing Erdoğan and the AK Party. But this cannot be.
Can the side they have been taking be organizations threatening the security of the government, armed and under the control of foreign countries? Yes, it can.
Even “the academics,” without uttering a single word about these organizations, are able to accuse the government of murder.
Now when it is about the country, nation, state and flag, is it a polarizing attitude to respond to the ones taking the side of the enemy at the highest level? No, it is not.
Let's say Erdoğan's attitude is harsh and mistaken. Why didn't these people say at all that “Erdoğan's attitude is wrong but let's talk about it later, now the country is under attack from other terror organizations, let's defend it?”
Another question: Why didn't anyone tell Kılıçdaroğlu, who recently called the president a “so-called dictator,” because of his curses to date, “his attitude is bad, he is polarizing the country?”
Aligning with those who treat the country as an enemy
Has anyone asked the media, academics, businessmen, the actors taking the side of those who always treated the country as an enemy in the Gezi Park events, the coup attempt of the parallel state, the PKK terror, Russian crisis and the Syria events “Well, what if you are the separatists one polarizing and taking the wrong side?”
So what, is it all an issue of attitude, shouting and calling to challenge when talking? For those who shout out and stir the world to rebellion claiming that their newspaper, holding, congregation and party were attacked, they say “they are seeking their rights, it is normal that they are not unbiased.”
But they say Erdoğan's attitude is wrong, as he has been shouting because the country, state and government he represents have been attacked.
And they want him to be unbiased.
Let's give the last word to Cemil Meriç: “In a place where there is tyranny, neutrality is dishonesty.”
I hope you have learned who started the polarization.