We continue to talk about the picture coming out of the elections. It is quite normal that everyone infer different conclusions from this picture as he desires, because no matter how clear, didactic or enlightening an event or situation this is, it cannot rule out the different approaches. This is exactly a simple reflection of the freedom space of a sophisticated reality called human being. Politics is a process perfectly realized on a ground maintaining this freedom.
PM Erdogan’s balcony speech in which he spoke in a modest manner beyond expectations and requesting forgiveness from those whom he might have hurt as a leader coming out with an absolute victory was welcomed very affirmatively. However, his addressees Kılıcdaroglu (Chair of Republican People Party) and Bahceli (Chair of Nationalist Progress Party) put forward the condition of “apology” for forgiveness. When it comes to Demirtas (Chair of Peace and Democracy Party), put forward the condition of releasing the 2000 KCK (Unions of Communities in Kurdistan) and settling the account of the unfair treatment towards Kurds.
Forgiveness is one of the multi-functional and deep jests of our culture and world values. At the end of the terms when politics work on an excessively conflicting ground precluding dialogue, this cultural value has a significant constructive and restorative function if one proceed his way in politics. In general the party taking on the forgiveness is the party that taking on greatness as well. Putting forward conditions against this greatness is not welcomed. Turning down the request of forgiveness means that one doesn’t have the intention of neither compromising nor understanding nor cooperating in any case.
However, looking at the picture coming out of the election since 12 of June we have been stating and hearing that the community has tied up its demand of a new constitution to the condition of cooperation among the political parties in the parliament. All political parties should somehow contribute to the preparation of a new constitution. It’s a duty for all to take on an attitude that will ease the dialogue instead of aggravate it in the post-election period; of course if all got the message of responsibility of a new constitution at the same level.
In my opinion, failure of AK Party in getting the seat number that would enable it to change the constitution solely or taking it to referendum has relieved the AK Party in terms of responsibility. In fact, it has already reached the targets in the constitution in terms of its priorities in 12 September referendum. In that sense, it can even be considered as one of the parties needing a new constitution the least. It can pull off saying that the public has granted it with a great authority and power to establish a powerful government but not for a new constitution.
However, such a renunciation will come to mean that AK Party also relinquish from the revolutionary role that it played for nine years, but I think that AK Party doesn’t have the luxury of doing that in terms of the demands of the electorate. Undoubtedly it also has a great responsibility for the new and civil constitution, thus it also should pay attention to its actions and discourses and it should not damage the dialogue ground with the other parties for this task. Indeed, the requests of forgiveness and withdrawal of all lawsuits is a good beginning in this context. However, other parties also should know that the responsibility of this task is not on the shoulders of AK Party alone.
Primarily CHP (Republican People Party), if it wants to be a part of Turkey despite of the internal opposition should see that there is no other choice but for steering the wheel to direction of contesting with AK Party in terms of democratization. It should also see that that area is the only area that it can compete with AK Party as well. The recommendation concerning the constitution was not bad at all and it was even better than that of AK Party in many respects. However, it is now time to prove the sincerity in this recommendation.
When it comes to BDP, it represents the party that should be more constructive since it aspires for the solution of the problems of the masses voting for it. AK Party, which it considered as the only addressee for the solution of the Kurdish issue is not in a position to support it in the parliament even if it contributes to the end. Now the number of the addresses that it has to persuade has increased. From now on besides AK Party it has to persuade CHP and MHP as well.
This situation will require BDP to be more controlled in its discourses and use a more political and diplomatic language. The results of the election provided it to enter the parliament with a more crowded number but this also encumbered a greater responsibility as well. An advantage of it is that both addressees of it have come to the same line concerning many of its demands. It is a prominent line where the definition of citizenship, Kurdish language and exclusively the Kurdish political representation is recognized at different levels. This line is enables them sufficiently to represent its electorate and defend their rights.
BDP should also take into consideration that they should recompense this line in order to solve the problems of the masses voting for them. This line is the line of politics on which every single kind of issue can be spoken which has never come about beforehand in the history of Republic of Turkey. This a real gain of democracy in this history. Seeing all these gains and protecting and improving this gain is another responsibility. We have the right to expect this from the BDP not from any other since it claims on the representation of the masses suffered from the anti democratic, assimilative, denialist policies in Turkey.
(Published in Yeni Şafak on 20 Haziran 2011)
Translation by El-Vanî