Opposition is an opportunity

It is quite clear that the recent debates regarding corruption allegations do not aim to serve the realization of a "clean society" ideal; nevertheless, I remain optimistic that, as a result of these debates, society will make progress toward greater purification and transparency across all its institutions.

This optimism of mine persists despite the fact that the parties actually view all kinds of ethical rules merely as simple instruments to corner their opponents.

If not for the efforts of the CHP—which shifted its opposition against the AK Party during this process from the axis of secularism and chronic regime crises to that of corruption—to gradually place the fight against corruption onto the very same ideological axis, it might even have made a serious contribution to this process.

Unfortunately, rather than making this contribution, the CHP squanders the ideal of a "clean society" by coveting the extremely immediate and cheap gains of daily politics. Writing corruption scenarios based on unproven allegations and exaggerating matters beyond reality under the guise of tackling corruption can create a perception of corruption far greater than what actually exists in society. The most negative effect of this perception is the complete loss of trust in society and its contribution to making evil a societal norm. Driving people into the feeling that no one can be trusted is in itself a major moral disaster.

Unfortunately, the CHP's contribution to a clean society does not stem from its own purity. Had that been the case, it could certainly have contributed much more to reaching a clean society by calling corruption to account during this process. Today, however, both its own record and performance regarding corruption, as well as the passion it displays whenever it pursues any rumor of corruption, give the impression that its ultimate goal is not to eliminate corruption, but rather to associate itself with it. Naturally, this significantly drains the fruitfulness of the process that would realize the ideal of a clean society.

The manner in which the Deniz Feneri incident is being pursued constitutes an area where this lack of fruitfulness is concretely felt. Its opposition on this matter not only fails to contribute to resolving poverty—which is an indisputable reality in society—but also targets what may be the sole sustenance channels of people who have no choice other than receiving aid.

Nevertheless, as a result of this process, the increase in accountability within society, and people's orientation toward a transparent sphere of activity—if fear of God is not enough, then at least through the control mechanisms formed—is ensured by the operation of such mechanisms in society. Turkey is a country that is rapidly modernizing with all its institutions. As it modernizes, it is inevitable that relationships and modes of activity gradually move from personal and charismatic performance areas toward a more impersonal standard.

This week's guest on the program "İnterpolitik," hosted by our colleague İbrahim Karagül on TV-NET, was Bülent Yıldırım, the president of IHH, Turkey's strongest civil humanitarian aid organization. It is a fact conceded by everyone who follows its activities that IHH—which for years has been distributing humanitarian aid to all corners of the world, infusing it with the purest intentions, spirits, and enthusiasm of the donors—has become a pride of both Turkey and Muslims. What President Yıldırım shared reveals not only the tear-jerking, colossal activities of the organization, but also a fascinating picture of an exemplary organization in terms of transparency and reliability. For instance, we learn from him that IHH has already established the most advanced inspection and transparency mechanisms possible regarding the distribution of the aid it undertakes strictly in line with the intentions and goals of the donors, as well as operating solely in line with its objectives across all its activities.

Indeed, it is no longer possible to sustain activities of such immense magnitude on the basis of personal trust in the traditional sense. Moreover, within the Islamic tradition, even though trust is essential, examples of believers who could hold their own head of state (Caliph Umar) accountable when noticing an irregularity are well known.

Undoubtedly, Muslims have quite strong references or motivations of their own to establish these mechanisms; however, assuming and feeling a sense of tracking and auditability in the strongest manner can also be a factor that raises the quality standards of institutions. Even if the CHP or other opposition parties do not possess these noble intentions, a beneficial outcome of their actions could well be this.