The difference of determined politics

In my last article I cited the attitudes some CHP and HDP deputies put forward during the Constitutional Commission regarding the timing of the debates as typical, instructive attitudes. These attitudes were truly instructive because they were demanding "an endless time" for the constitutional deliberations.

Looking at the justification, it pointed to the importance, during a constitutional amendment, which as a social contract sounds pleasant and is even attributed a degree of sanctity, of talking everything through to the very end until nothing remains in anyone's mind or heart.

But when it comes to these actors, would these words really have an end?

When the intention is to block the matter at the root, and since this intention has been declared from the very beginning,

could there be a point of satiety in the talks that would convince any of the parties?

As a matter of fact, from the moment the decision the CHP and HDP members had previously made on non-agreement during the constitutional debate is clear, all the debates turn into a procedure whose outcome is known and which must be completed. But

the "demand for endless talk"

gives an opportunity to complete one or two points that need to be recorded.

First, the abundance of time that the CHP-HDP have reflects to a large extent their irresponsibility toward this country.

To put it more clearly, these two parties, nourished by the same political persuasion, have not the slightest sense of responsibility toward the people of this country. They have no concern for developing this country, making it prosper, adding positive value to this country. Of course there is a situation they are trying to protect, and in the name of preserving that situation they do not refrain from displaying every kind of resistance. At present the only thing they need in order to protect that situation, that position, is more time. That is why slowing the work down, sabotaging it, putting a wedge in the process is what they do best.

Second, the justification the CHP and HDP put forward in order to gain this time and to carry on the debates endlessly,

"talking everything through to the end,"

is one of the most important practices of

deliberative democracy,

on which liberal left politics once dwelt at length. This politics, which brought endless talk to the fore to the point of sanctifying it, did not even notice that talk, over time, renders everything meaningless in a way that makes producing politics impossible.

The famous

French post-structuralist philosopher Jacques Derrida,

who reflected the spirit of this period, in fact dug quite firmly the philosophical foundation of this style of politics too, by saying that the principle valid in the face of an existing political situation or regarding what the real meaning of a text is

is "undecidability."

Undecidability is in the end the result of a nihilist state of mind, and leaves people in blind wells without a ladder

. This state of mind infects left-liberal politics and leaves it completely indecisive. One reason the left today cannot produce politics is none other than this disease of too much talk.

After all, much talk does not come without lies

.

Thank God there is another strong feeling called responsibility, and there are people who have this feeling and a politics run by those people. Talking goes up to a point, but there is also a level called "sufficiency of deliberation," and for the "decision-makers" to see this level well, and the moment they see it to see the most reasonable of all the different views they have listened to up to that moment and settle on it, is precisely what reveals political quality and performance.

"Those believers who listen to all words and follow the best of them."

The constitutional amendment proposal decided on in the TBMM to be put to the people's vote is also the outcome of a decision reached as a result of broad consultations. When setting out for this decision, the AK Parti's text was different, and the MHP's was different. But as a result of their discussion a compromise text emerged, and this text was in fact revised as a result of the consultations that continued during the commission stage as well. By holding endless debates and displaying very good rhetorical performances, it can be shown that this text is very problematic or perfect. What follows from there reveals everyone's direction, intention and inclination regarding this world.

But there is one thing everyone has learned in the process: the public demands to be far more decisive on this matter than the left-wing politicians suppose. People will see very well from what lived realities the decision that has emerged on this matter arose, and will decide accordingly. For people who bear even a little responsibility for their country, there is no undecidable situation here.

Turkey is finally answering the need to eliminate the disorganization in government that causes a complete loss of time, functionality, efficiency and energy.

With the presidential system Turkey ensures a kind of bodily integrity and coordination of movement.

In the current situation we can frequently encounter circumstances such as the organs of the state working in different directions from one another, and this afflicts the country's bodily integrity with a spastic disability. This disability is being remedied.

By ensuring this bodily integrity, Turkey further consolidates its aptitude to be a nation governed with one head.

This decision reached in the TBMM is coming before the nation. Whatever the nation's decision will be, simply by being the nation's decision it will be "good" in itself.