10 November sensitivity

The opposition, which misses no opportunity to flee from politics, has made the 10 November sensitivity its last point of escape. Both Bahçeli and Bahçeli repeated many times that launching a move concerning the opening on the anniversary of Atatürk's death is a disrespect to Atatürk's spiritual personality. And yesterday, interestingly, the PKK's third man, Duran Kalkan, also joined this chorus. Proceeding from the claim that "on the anniversary of Atatürk's death Turkey is naturally in mourning," he has attributed ill intent to the government.

First of all, without any idea whether the day was really chosen by chance or whether it could be changed, I only want to draw attention to one or two points about how politics can be portrayed as so incompatible with the 10 November sensitivity. After all, what feature does what is to be done on 10 November have that would be shameful, immoral to do in normal times and could never be reconciled with an anniversary of mourning?

The subject planned to be discussed in the Assembly that day is the investigation of the possibilities of re-establishing, and strongly, Turkey's social peace. A very important dimension of the matter is the stopping of the blood that has been flowing senselessly for 25 years, the drying of mothers' and fathers' tears, the untying of a Gordian knot that has been wasting the resources of all Turkey, beginning with the Southeast, and the discussion, within the limits of politics and under the roof of the TBMM, of the ways to deliver Turkey from this heavy gloom and set it on the attack. No one has any doubt that when all this is achieved, the Republic, whose founder is commemorated on 10 November, will be a far stronger republic, and the country's incredibly rich potential will be freed and develop and strengthen rapidly.

So what is wrong with doing such a thing on 10 November? What point of sensitivity regarding 10 November cannot be reconciled with these ideals? It is impossible to understand. If there is such a thing as sensitivity of respect for Atatürk, would this not be the most beautiful gift to address that sensitivity? After all, to a leader who is the author of a maxim like "Peace at home, peace in the world," could there be a more meaningful gift on such a day than the effort of a "sincere search for social peace"?

You may think that all these ideals cannot be realized with the methods the government has undertaken. You may also think that the path taken on this matter is wrong and that you have a more correct one. Could there be a better place or opportunity than a session in the TBMM to voice your thoughts, to debate, and to refute the government's theses? If what is being done is not wrong, why should it be wrong to do it on 10 November or on any other day?

We can in fact ask the questions from another angle that is not at all amusing: for example, given that the problem is largely the stopping of bloodshed, and that addressing it today is considered contrary to the 10 November sensitivity, what is it, then, that is more compatible with this sensitivity? Is it, for example, more blood being shed in memory of this sacred day, the cold winds in between being made to blow even colder, or anger and hatred being increased still more? What should be done to behave in a way more fitting to the 10 November sensitivity?

Politics is a human activity that must come into play especially where bombastic feelings obstruct reason and debate and suppress common sense, and its best place of representation is the roof of the Assembly. Unfortunately, instead of performing this representative duty under the roof of the Assembly, politicians behave quite skillfully at throwing all problems into the emotional realm, that is, into the whirlpool of feelings entirely.

As if there were not enough emotional barriers obstructing politics, putting up something called the 10 November Sensitivity before the problem is like kicking the ball into the stands. Just like what the PKK members returning from Kandil did with their welcome shows... We have to wait every time, at length, for the ball to come back from the stands where it was thrown...

That teams losing the game on the field kick the ball into the stands every other minute, and especially that they do not want a ball that has gone to come back, is in fact a foolish thing, because the time that passes consolidates their own defeat further. But if what is being done with this is provoking those in the stands too into joining the game with feelings of control, this is a very dangerous game.

Up to a point we can understand, politics is a field in which no one has to think of the good of his rival, but at least let it not turn into an effort that completely destroys the ground for doing politics.