If we cannot reach consensus even on terror, coups and treason…

Society is a field of differences. The state of being a solid whole (yükvucut), the wholeness that the definition of nation desires as a political strategy and tries to design and put into effect, always undergoes serious trials in the face of this reality of difference that is in the nature of society. The differences, stratifications and class divisions within society and the tensions among them always put serious pressure on the process of becoming a nation.

Contrary to what is supposed, the only problem in Turkey's process of becoming a nation has not been an ethnic identity definition that failed to be sufficiently inclusive and embracing.

Trying to bring about nationhood with an ethnic definition that does not fit the reality of society has been one of the society's important areas of tension. But in the Republican period this has not been the only obstacle or difficulty before nationhood.

The greatest problem has been that, despite all the differentiations, no field of common values or sensibilities on which everyone could agree has formed, and that the actors in the country have cared more about their ties with other nations or countries.

This shows that social differences are far greater than supposed and raise insurmountable walls between societies.

The political environment depicted by deliberative democracy remains excessively optimistic when one looks at the political environment displayed in Turkey.

To reach a point of agreement by negotiating with one another, first of all the parties must hold an intention and will in that direction. Yet the parties are far from any desire and will to reach agreement with one another even on the most basic concepts and values, because they do not hold a desire to be a nation; so to speak, they do not enter negotiation with the intention of building a nation with the people they live with while respecting mutual rights, but enter it to deepen conflict on behalf of other countries or organizations. Precisely for this reason, let alone being a nation, they continue to systematically erode some basic values necessary even for being a society.

It is clear that this is the situation that will challenge us the most in an environment where such a great social demand for making a new constitution has formed.

Look, we cannot even develop a common field of sensibility, a definition or an attitude against coups.

In theory everyone is against coups, but when the possibility of a coup appears as a relatively strong possibility, we can see some people taking their salt and running at once. Some people look at against whom and by whom the coup will be carried out. It was so in the coup of 9-12 March, in 12 September and 28 February, and in all the coups attempted afterwards. In each of them, because some people lined up with the coups, the coups gained a certain ground of legitimacy, even if temporarily, and came to pass. Only after the coups did what they were going to do was the legitimacy or rightness of those coups questioned.

And when a coup comes in different guises, it confuses minds even more and can draw more people to its side.

Because no strong sensibility has formed against the essence of the coup, we can see that even those who for a time stood out as anti-coup applaud a coup that comes in a different guise. Yet whatever guise it comes under, whatever tricks it tries to use to open a space for itself, being against coups and a high consciousness displayed against them must be one of the most common values of a healthy society.

The same should hold for terror, should it not? Today a hypocritical discourse is in vogue that, instead of rejecting terror on principle, evaluates it by looking at who it comes from and develops a sensibility against it on that basis.

In no country in the world is it accepted that someone who undertook a criminal suicide attack that caused the death of 29 civilians and the wounding of 60 people be presented as a hero. Unfortunately, what does not happen anywhere in the world happens in Turkey, and a

member of parliament attends the funeral of a terrorist

who carried out a suicide attack and took 29 lives with his own, and his party and other fellow MPs are able to defend his attendance.

DHKP-C terrorists who held a prosecutor hostage for hours and brutally killed him at the end of the action were presented by CHP MPs almost as heroes.

Those who carried out those actions, and those who supported them, were presented as though exercising a normal democratic right. HDP and CHP MPs have taken on the political representation, one of the PKK and the other of the DHKP-C or MLKP. It turns out our having been hopeful, looking at the harsh reaction they displayed against the attacks DAEŞ militants carried out at Suruç or Ankara Station, was in vain.

We were hasty in reading that reaction in essence as "a reaction against terror." What both of them object to is not terror itself but that it comes from DAEŞ. If the PKK or the DHKP-C commits terror, it can be seen as an innocent act.

Yet we have always said that DAEŞ is a terrorist organization and that, let alone condemn and curse all its actions, we are ready to stand in the harshest stance against it. If we cannot agree and reconcile on opposition to terror, if we classify terror according to who it comes from and take a stance accordingly, it is not possible for us to agree on anything.

If we cannot agree on these matters, then of course it is quite normal that we also display this scattered attitude on the definition of treason

. Those who engage in espionage against their own country's soldiers and intelligence and, when caught red-handed, try to raise a clamor of "press freedom" may suppose they find opportunity or courage in this lack of agreement. But we can say that a national will has now emerged in Turkey toward tying those basic issues, on which agreement is increasingly lacking, to a law, to a sanction. This will is a vital will for Turkey to stand on its feet, to be a nation and to defend itself, and what we have lived through in Turkey recently is nothing other than a manifestation of this will.