At the beginning, voting “NO” for the administration’s draft and being successfully organized to create discomfort about the administration, thought to be easy but when it got serious, which means when there appeared necessity of explaining the draft to the people, it is understood to be much difficult for the supporters of “NO” to maintain such a policy.
When examining the referendum package in details, there is no logical reason to be found for voting “NO”. Labor Union Rights, protection of the private life, improvements for women, children and disabled people, regulations on the structure of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors, giving way to judge the decisions of the Military Council, collective agreement rights of officials, the concrete reformation in details of the package has no rational explanation to vote for “NO”. Therefore; the supporters of “NO” insistently refrain from a debate about the details of the package. This of course, causes much worse situation, because even there is no reason to oppose to the details of the package, the objections done for it, are not being able to be done without dramatically deliberate arguments and that causes very difficult bias to make it support.
For example; the reason of objections because AK Party offered the package, cannot be hidden. Especially the explanation of the left flank is in this target. And sometimes with very obvious expression it is said that the change, which AK Party is going to do, will not come true due to its vision. This required equation which is established among AK Party’s essence, root and the vision, let relief of the racial dimensions of essence in left flank.
To express that AK Party will not be able to contribute to any positive attempt owing to their essence and past that’s why an attempt for being opposite to any change offer comes from the AK Party group is the duty of the Left flanks. This attitude makes the left wing get away from the politics.
We can assume with good faith that this attitude is not taken with the necessity of cooperation with some focus. In this case we must see that how the left wing (or at least we shall say a portion of the left wing, because the best criticism comes from the left again) politically falls into poverty. It is possible to see the existing constitutional package inadequate when we get into details but there isn’t an article in order not to take Turkey any further. Despite all, not being perfect in all sense is the main reason of to be object to it for the oppositions. Secondly this package has been offered by a part of AK party which has to play the role of standing as “reactionist” and resists all development movements during its past.
In both cases it should be asked to the left flank that is this package an obstacle to prepare a better package when its content has been considered? The second question is that which actor would you think of working with for an ideal change? If you turn your face to a reformation program, when do you think the people who will get away from you will also give enough support to you?
The book of Tanıl Bora with the title of Left, Cynicism and Pragmatism which is published by Birikim Publications, presents a perfect criticism of claims about cynicism problems in terms of left political theories. It is a strong analysis about giving up the possible reformations for more perfect but impossible policy which makes it difficult to follow a policy by the left flank. (I strongly suggest the book not only for the left flank but also for Islam world which comes across with the disease of cynicism from time to time)
I wish the only problem was what we have mentioned above about the left flank. But the problem reaches further extent that jealousy feeling over left flanks’ values could direct the political parties into worse alliance. While left values being accepted as the primary values later this jealousy could be transform into a community feeling. Therefore; with the overwhelming of the people who are from AK Party, Islamic or conservative, they assume to protect the historical alliances with the nationalist part (!).
We have reached a sphere that left flank both votes “NO” for the prohibition of the prosecution of September 12 with the removal of the article 15th, and wanted to be called of supporting the coup. They don’t feel comfortable about their defended ideas which let them down, either. To some extent this contradiction should be considered as containing positive and intimate conflict.
We have said before that the referendum process is a natural way of democratic rights for voting both “YES” and “NO” even boycotting it. But this doesn’t mean that preferences have no meaning and because of voting for both “YES” and “NO” will give an account of established alliances. MHP (Nationalist Movement Party) will give an account of how it fell into an alliance with BDP (Peace and Democracy Party) and CHP (Republican People’s Party) and vice versa. The people who lived the atrocity of 12th September will give account of how to say “NO” to this change. Otherwise, both a weird preference will be done also with propaganda and will request a relief for the objection of giving account.
Did you think of voters not giving any account of their votes in democracies?
(Published on Yeni Safak [newspaper] on 26.07.2010)