Notes to politicians from the rally squares

With the local election rallies that Deniz Baykal also launched from Adana, the contest in the squares that Prime Minister Erdoğan had been conducting almost single-handedly for quite some time has begun to turn into an exchange of fire as well.

It has probably caught many of our attention for some time. One of the most important features that makes the coming elections quite different from previous ones is that secularism is not one of the subjects of the election propaganda… In an election in which secularism, republican values or Atatürkism are not a subject of quarrel between the sides, even if tensions and sharp exchanges are not lacking, it is possible to pass over what happens by saying "that much happens in every democratic election."

That corruption allegations rather than secularism are the subject of accusations is of course preferable from the standpoint of the functioning of democracy. Granted, the parties' manner of approaching these subjects presents by no means a cheering picture in terms of the moral quality of our democratic actors. The opposition is supposed to work as a mechanism of oversight over the government and to force the system into full transparency. But for this, it should not neglect to be credible while voicing corruption allegations, and the manner of proving its own allegations should not itself be a product of corruption. Unfortunately, an opposition (or government) discourse built on corruption allegations in this way serves nothing but to pull the moral level of society further down. A conception of politics that evaluates corruption files only when their turn comes and as a trump card against its opponents not only does not serve the ideal of a clean society, but a politics of this kind continues to feed the greatest culture of corruption.

Another matter concerning the local elections is the unmeasured crudeness and harshness in the leaders' styles. Since harshness in the politics conducted over corruption is almost one of the routines of Turkish politics, it is relatively easier to make up for. Turkish political history has, unfortunately, coded corruption accusations as a routine of politics. We know that those who leave no accusation unleveled at one another in the squares go on playing in the political process as if nothing had happened. That this style can be digested so easily is undoubtedly not at all a good sign about our moral level, but that is for now another subject.

However, particularly in debates built on the "secularism-religion" and "Kurd-Turk" axes, the hardening of the leaders' style prepares serious ground for greater emotional divisions in society. The leaders' harsh styles, no less than those of the lowest-level militants, lead different segments of society to other one another and develop thoroughly intolerant attitudes. Yet a more reasonable style of debate can have a much more constructive and support-generating effect

We can say that Prime Minister Erdoğan's refraining, at the Diyarbakır rally and then at the rally he held in Adıyaman, from entering into a harsher polemic with both the DTP members and the CHP than before found an immediately positive echo in the square and across the Southeast generally. In polarized political environments there is a degree up to which the sides' harsh styles toward each other are more valid. But this polarization has an optimum point, at which, instead of expressing anger at one another, gestures of peace toward one another can be much more functional.

We can say that Prime Minister Erdoğan in particular is at that point today. His harsh, Kasımpaşa style up to now was an attitude to which the people responded quite positively, whatever anyone says, but at the point Turkish politics has reached, Erdoğan's continuing his argument with his opponents with the same harshness will benefit neither himself nor Turkey in general.

I know that the squares are extremely seductive settings for sharp polemics with the opposition. But in Turkish politics one must also see the horizons of an innovation to be made in this area. It is also possible to turn the squares from a field where political opponents fire at one another into a platform where what has been done or will be done is told. I also know that such a thing would most probably suffice neither to excite nor to motivate the crowds gathering in the square. But there is no doubt that taking on this difficulty would give rise to a new hope for political quality.

Indeed, the softening the Prime Minister tried at the Diyarbakır rally found its response immediately. The response in question is that the expected tension in the region on account of the AK Parti rally did not occur, and indeed that this rally largely normalized the political process in the region. The DTP too took its share of this normalization, in the form of not resorting to non-political reactions like those it displayed toward Erdoğan's earlier visits. If only the MHP, CHP and other parties could also hold their rallies in Diyarbakır under the same conditions.

Rally squares are places where parties hold up the best mirror to themselves and thus both see themselves and find an opportunity to set themselves in order. But at the same time there is an interesting network of communication among rally squares. A CHP rally in Diyarbakır surely carries something to the rally in Antalya or in Kadıköy. This too needs to be seen...