Democracy has a peculiar nature

Dissent, debate and contention are in the nature of society. Optimistic approaches that ignore this nature and assume society to be in "unity and solidarity," far from every kind of debate and dissent, miss the reality of society. And the national ideologies that call for this unity and solidarity cannot realize the ideal of a "classless, privilege-free, fused" society either voluntarily or even by force.

These days Ali Bulaç is writing on the concept of "deliberative democracy." Deliberative democracy has in fact been criticized as a rather naive approach that underestimates the conflict potentials of the different groups or communities that society contains and has no preparation suited to these potentials. In the end, the conflicting sides in society are more inclined, rather than to "good faith" to sit down and negotiate with one another for the ideal of a "fused society," to build this society exclusively with their own communities, and, if possible, while representing their own communities' interests at the maximum level, to dig a pit for the others.

Deliberative democracy approaches, with an optimism it cannot answer, only the question of on what basis people could sit down to a negotiation on a ground where there exist groups that regard one another almost as enemies and cannot tolerate one another in any way.

In Turkey, the different group or community structures have produced a scene in which what one calls white the other calls black. The sides have no common values to be agreed upon and negotiated. Even the values called common are a field of common acceptance that the sides seem to accept only as a result of official-ideological pressure, that is, one that begins with a lie at the outset.

The content of the "national oath," read out and memorized by tender minds in primary schools every day, is like a complete field of common roles. Even those who do not object take part in this ideological field, which has no counterpart at all, only by playing the role of not being a spoilsport.

For deliberative democracy to function, one must above all have agreed on democracy as a common value, and unfortunately in Turkey even democracy is still not a common value among people. Masses of not insignificant size who see coups as an option can perceive going after a structure like Ergenekon as an attack on themselves.

Yet one could at least hope that there would be no dispute on this. Even if the coup crime is only alleged, if a series of murders committed in flagrante crime and a series of unsolved murders that now have the prospect of being clarified are not enough, there are tons of weapons and ammunition. Going after all of this actually means going after a network that threatens the existence of society.

Yet even this can be the subject of the main division in the media. A defense line is set up around the Ergenekon case, and those who set up this line and take positions at its front can be found among the most important representatives of the media. Meanwhile, other cases, found and put together somehow, are brought up and set against a case of this scale to balance it. The Deniz Feneri case, for example; of course let it be seen through to the end, but why is this case put against Ergenekon with a logic of retaliation? In doing so, even law, which had the potential to be a common ground, is reduced to a mere "trump card." And this does nothing other than destroy the ground necessary for a negotiation, for a social reconciliation.

Society of course does not need to become a fused structure. But this does not require that society be in a state of endless fighting that constantly wears down all its existence either.

To set democracy on a deliberative track, one must begin by building a common culture of conduct on which negotiations can proceed. For this, and this may sound a bit naive, simple gestures that sometimes put communal pride aside and throw bridges to the other side can be useful. In particular, gestures made by the strong while they are strong can play a founding role for this culture of conduct.

The statements Bülent Arınç and Beşir Atalay have made these days, and the policies they follow, are very right and appropriate in this respect. This stance, which eliminated the prospect of an execution, whetting some people's appetite, against DTP deputies by declaring it a complete manifesto of democracy, is very valuable.

When the occasion arises, opportunities to build similar bridges with CHP supporters and with MHP supporters must not be missed. To set democracy on a basis of social reconciliation, the sides must get to know one another and, in the meantime, set a limit reasonable enough, in the harm they will inflict on one another, not to make living together impossible.