First, I would like to answer the question on everyone’s mind: No, the dialogue process is not over yet.
I know this for sure because I heard President Erdogan’s statement on the plane returning from the G7, and on the first day of my vacation I spoke to CHP Chairman Özgür Özer by phone and observed what he said.
Let’s start with the notable parts of President Erdogan’s statement on the matter.
As one of the most experienced politicians not just in Turkey but in the world, President Erdogan stressed in his text that “Our party’s spokesman Omer Celik Bey has already made the necessary statements in detail. If we pay attention to these statements, there will be no provocations or confrontations. There will only be a clear stance.”
If we accept the statement “there will be no provocation or confrontation” as the first signal, then the president’s words at the Eid celebrations with his party members are the second signal.
Noting the uncertainties in the world and the ring of fire in our region, the President said Turkey should leave behind the tense atmosphere caused by the elections and focus on the future.
In other words, Erdogan wants to recognize the damage caused to Turkey by political rivalry that has turned into political hostility and address it accordingly.
Let me tell you about a telephone conversation I had with CHP Chairman Özgür Özer on the first day of my vacation.
On the first day of his holiday, Ezer spoke by phone with 19 party leaders, including his co-chairs, but his most important conversations were with President Erdogan and MHP Chairman Debret Bahceli.
At this point I need to open a parenthesis and mention the benefits that a dialogue process brings.
Issues of national policy should not, under normal circumstances, be used to inform domestic policy, but that line was crossed well during the Kılıçdaroğlu era.
For example, the agreement that was signed with Libya, the source of international law for the Blue Homeland, asks: “What are we doing in Libya?” We saw the CHP Vice-Chairman asking the question.
Ezer said he would not toe that line and, in a holiday speech, conveyed the message of working alongside Turkey on the 50th anniversary of the Cyprus peace operation.
These are models of behavior that should exist, but unfortunately we have forgotten.
Writing all this down, a picture emerges of a continuing dialogue process in Turkey.
You need to read this process properly.
This dialogue process will not seek new alliances or government models in Turkey, but will provide an environment for dialogue that does not turn political competition into political hostility and does not use national policies as fodder for domestic politics.
What does the dialogue process bring to whom?
– The problem with our political outlook is actually the question in the title. There are many people who don’t think the scenario of a Turkish victory is enough and think about their own party winning.
– Aren’t communication and negotiation essential elements of democracy?
– When you try to fight on issues you didn’t negotiate, can you convince sections of society that didn’t vote for you?
– The initiative taken by Özgül Özer actually removes the votes his party receives depending on the government’s success or failure in the economy. The reason the dialogue process is problematic is that the base supported it and Özer approved it. It seems that there were more people than expected in the CHP who wanted a chairman who would handle the day-to-day business rather than leadership.
American Colonialism and Kılıç Darol…
Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu shared a lengthy message on social media last week:
The message began, “At 18 years old, young Kemal was fighting against American colonialism with his friends, but he had a problem…”
I didn’t even feel the need to read more.
The Turkish youth movement and those who participated in the revolutionary struggle of 1968 did not fight against American colonialism, because there was no such concept as American colonialism.
On the contrary, the Americas were one of the regions that had already been exploited.
It was American imperialism that people were fighting against, and imperialism and colonialism are two completely different things. In an imperialist system, the exploited countries have no political independence, but the global capital groups acquire power in countries that do have political independence, thanks to the spheres of influence they have acquired.
As a result, the two definitions are completely different from each other.
When someone says they have spent their whole life fighting, they should be careful with the sentences they use and be careful not to ad-hoc the storyline of the narrative they choose.
Moreover, to claim to fight against US “colonialism” one must also oppose the structures the US is trying to create in the region and the methods it uses.
If your words and actions are not in harmony, then whatever you say will be empty and whatever you do will be incomplete…
