Not a ‘manly’ act by Anatolian standards
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) chairman Devlet Bahçeli said, “The miserable ones who stay at their summer houses in İzmir, who did not vote for the MHP but who carried the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) to the parliament… Those who sipped their whiskies at beach houses and voted for the HDP have no honor. Now, go and form a coalition with the HDP.”
I did not understand why “the miserable ones lacking honor who carried the HDP to the parliament” would form a coalition with the HDP but this sounded like Devlet Bahçeli.
The phrase I found strange was “those living at beach houses lacking honor.”
I read his words carefully and I understood that if those people, even if they live in waterfront houses and drink whisky, if they hadn’t voted for the HDP and voted for the MHP, they would not be regarded as lacking honor.
The criteria of the MHP leader are not “living at a seaside house at İzmir or drinking whiskey;” the criterion is voting for the HDP instead of the MHP.
I always thought miserable people or those who lack honor had other features. For instance, they should be thieves or murderers or accomplices. They should lack conscience; they should be able to give up everything for money and personal interests.
But Bahçeli’s criterion is about who you are voting for.
This is not an acceptable situation in a democracy. It is a shameful attitude for a person like Devlet Bahçeli, who has spent a major portion of his life in politics.
On the other hand, I don’t know how many people there are who live in a seaside house, sip whisky and vote for the HDP, but regardless of their numbers, these people should not be insulted like this.
Yes, people insult each other; however, when this happens among equals, it is more acceptable.
For instance, if I call Mr. Rüknettin a “scumbag” who lives in a seaside house, drinks whiskey and votes for the HDP, there would be consequences. Either he would beat me or we would end up in a police station or hospital and I may have to pay fines or something in the court.
But now, Mr. Rüknettin cannot answer Devlet Bahçeli. He cannot say, “Say it to my face, if you are a man,” because they are not equal; one is a deputy and has immunity. He has bodyguards, commandoes, etc.
If this situation was in any Anatolian town, they would say, “This is against manhood.”
Why don’t they use Öcalan?
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s plan is based on a one-party rule of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) after early elections. We know that now. He obviously sees that his success is associated with knocking the HDP under the election threshold.
At the moment, he does not take into account the moral and political issues that would be created by the votes of so many millions of Turkish citizens not represented in the parliament. The path to push the HDP under the threshold is by demonizing it. Erdoğan has a serious advantage towards this goal.
His advantage is the existence of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) warlords, who would be dysfunctional once arms are silenced and Turkey’s Kurdish issue is solved within democratic politics.
Erdoğan and the AKP are forcing the HDP to put a distance with the PKK, condemn terror and criticize the PKK. They know that the HDP is not in a position to do this in the tone and severity they desire.
By the way, the HDP is not in a position to stop the PKK’s violence.
There is only one person to stop this and he is confined at İmralı. The government, because it cannot risk the stopping of violence, is not allowing him to see anybody.
When such violent waves occurred in the past, the Öcalan factor was used on the PKK and it was effective.
Why doesn’t the government prefer to use this opportunity to stop the bloodshed? Why, I wonder…
The answer is in the second paragraph of the section.
