All of us have recorded losses

As soon as I took a look at the Turkish newspapers stacked in front of me on the plane, anxiety filled my heart. When I am abroad for a certain amount of time, every time I return home I feel the same anxiety. Such empty debates we are involved in and such unnecessary tensions we are creating.

Please take a look at what we went through during the Republic Day celebrations. Was it worth all of those bans? Was there a need for so much tension?

What was achieved by them? Who won what and who lost what?

AK Party became a government with a stick

* Looking at what was experienced and the statements issued, it was clearly seen that in the background of all of these incidents was the ruling party’s attempt to provoke the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and prevent the impression that the “CHP is protecting the Republic.”

* It was understood that behind the absolute implementation of the bans and the harsh methods of the police was not Ankara Governor Alaaddin Yüksel but the persistent stance of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Interior Minister İdris Naim Şahin.

* Regardless of how wrong it may be, the general impression that emerged was that the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is a prohibitive party intolerant of the opposition, ruling with a stick in its hand. The judgment is as if it is a government Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, and against Atatürk’s mausoleum, Anıtkabir. This year’s celebration was full of firsts. Instead of creating a relaxed environment in the society, the bans fueled tension. They reinforced polarization in society. While the 89th anniversary was assumed to introduce a “fine tuning” to the Republic Day celebrations, we were exposed to a “coarse tuning.”

In short, it was the AK Party that lost.

CHP unable to explain what it wanted

* The picture of CHP Istanbul Provincial Head Oğuz Kaan Salıcı has given me goosebumps, his turning to the soldiers during the ceremony and saying, “We are protecting the Republic you should be protecting” made us all remember the perception that the “CHP is calling the military to duty.” Was this really what was asked for? Was it an attempt to go back to the old days and lay the foundation of a platform for a coup? I don’t think so, but the scene happened to be very ugly.

* The CHP’s nationalist wing came forward. Their voices were heard the most. They showed the AK Party to be an anti-republic government. This approach was applauded by their voter profile’s grassroots but was far from influencing those indecisive voters who are in the middle.

* Despite everything, Kaderoğlu has demonstrated that he alone was the voice of the opposition. If, as a party, they had been more prepared and were able to explain themselves better, then they could have been able to save themselves from the destructive opposition perception, the one that only seeks to create tension.

MHP nowhere to be seen

I would have wanted to add the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) to this balance sheet, but it was not there.

Even though it is an important part of the opposition, the MHP, which usually demonstrates a zig-zagged performance in its relationships with the state and society, was this time siding with the government. Then, it gave the prime minister a good scolding.

There must be logic in this approach, however, we have not been able to solve it to this date.