Overdose in politics
We are experiencing hot political debates on the subject of the Ensar Foundation and the sexual abuse of children. Of course, the entire Ensar Foundation cannot be blamed, but it is now certain that an order or regulation to oversee the foundation dormitory buildings must be created.
On the other hand, we have been engaged in such political fights that concrete issues like “control” have been eroded.
First, let me say that I totally agree with Mrs. Fatma Şahin’s words, a former family minister and a rational politician: “Unfortunately, in our country, the style seems to dominate over the essence. I think Family Minister Sema Ramazanoğlu could not express it initially, then later she was able to explain what she meant.
Just as [main opposition leader Kemal] Kılıçdaroğlu was saying, about that sentence, that he did not mean that, the minister also did not mean that. In this case, I think we have experienced a communication accident…”
We have turned a communication accident into a huge political fight. This is because the sides were prioritizing politics.
In a mature political culture, before a political fight, the stance of “focusing on the problem” would be adopted: What kind of measures should be taken against the increase in child abuse cases in general?
Specifically, what is the legal status of the foundations and associations that own and manage student dormitories? What should they be? What are the shortcomings in the control mechanism?
No, we did not discuss these issues. Because of political fights, we were not able to deal with the “control” issue.
Well, as a matter of fact, “to be audited, to be controlled” is not our thing. When we talk about democracy, we think of being elected, in other words, to gain power; we do not like “being controlled.”
The proof of that is the laws that have been processed in parliament with the aim of restricting auditing but were annulled by the Constitutional Court; it was like this yesterday; it is like this today.
When there are no independent public institutions in the country, what good is it that “our” inspectors and “our” auditors are auditing “us?”
Do you see how broad the issue is?
French thinker Raymond Aron wrote at the end of 1950s, “The French have the tendency to turn economic, social and technical conflicts into ideological ones. Well, the economy is boring… On the other hand, [the debate on] secularism or the benefits of the state are extremely passionate… This debate can go on forever…”
It is as if they are not political partiers but political clans, and it is always “We are right.”
Because of abstract concepts and symbols that we are engaged in huge fights for, we tend to forget concrete and rational approaches.
When even humanitarian, technical and moral matters are viewed with a political conflict approach then neither reconciliation nor solutions are possible.
Again, French André Siegfried wrote in 1930, “Even in practical matters, we are making sensational political debates.”
The reason I am referring to these matters is to emphasize that overdosing on the political views we believe in, fueling rage and politicizing every matter are not virtues but serious faults.
This unhealthy mentality in the left and in the right in our country was present in the past in the French right and the French left, and they were not able to solve their problems through this. Only after 1958 did they recover.
Look at our history: It is full of fierce speeches with attempts to crush the other side.
Political fights have also consumed our human energy.
Our average development pace is at all times indeed above the Middle East but practically behind the Far East.
Look at the incident involving the abuse of children which has exceptional human and moral aspects and see the gruesome political fights we have conducted over it. As a matter of fact, we were not able to form a joint commission.
An overdose on fighting in politics harms the country.