If you believe so much in the result of an election that did not happen, you will live this trauma

Looking at the tone of anger, the shrillness and the lack of proportion in some of the reactions to the 16 April results, it is seen that the situation has reached the dimensions of a serious trauma beyond what was supposed.

By the nature and the rule of the referendum, even one vote more than half ensures that one of the two views is accepted as the common decision of all participants. Those who take part in the vote do so knowing this, and everyone tacitly gives their consent in advance to the result being so.

Even the CHP members know this, in fact, but they have convinced themselves so much that the result would be "no" that

it is understood that from the very beginning they had completely ignored the alternative of "yes" coming out.

In fact, when in the television programs Kılıçdaroğlu attended

he was asked questions beginning "what if, even if unlikely, 'yes' comes out,"

and I saw with what determination and anger he ignored this possibility, I had regarded it as a simple rhetorical tactic of his campaign and passed over it.

Though, even as a tactic I had found it very wrong on behalf of the "no" front.

Because expressing that he was this sure about the result could lead those who might vote "no" into complacency. Yet now it is understood that a Kılıçdaroğlu who was as sure as his name that the result would be "no" was not using a tactic at all; he really did not harbor the slightest doubt that the result would be "no."

I think this "state of absolute belief" constitutes the real cause of the trauma they are experiencing today. Whatever was invested in this over-believed and over-attached result has further increased the severity of the trauma this result has created.

Kılıçdaroğlu has not yet been able to move on to the stage of blaming the voters, as in the previous elections, in order to get over this trauma.

Instead, his first reaction this time is to cling to the claim that the election was rigged.

As much as he had believed that the election not yet held would end in his favor, this time he tries to find consolation by convincing himself and others that an election that ended otherwise can only have been rigged.

WHO MADE KILIÇDAROĞLU BELIEVE SO MUCH THAT IT WOULD BE "NO"?

In fact, at this stage it is also worth asking who had convinced Kılıçdaroğlu so strongly that he would certainly win an election that had not yet taken place

. Did FETÖ's polls and researchers, who in the 2014 local elections too had convinced him that the AK Parti's votes would certainly not exceed 25 percent, give him similar ground information this time as well? But had they not misled him in all the other elections before as well? Why does Kılıçdaroğlu not give up following the guide that has misled and misdirected him repeatedly in this way?

The same FETÖ members have in fact so far misled both Kılıçdaroğlu and the outside world by giving false tips before all the elections to take place in Turkey

. In this way, of course, they not only harmed Turkey, they also did great harm to all outside investors or countries with calculations concerning Turkey by misleading them.

In the end, the end of one whose guide is FETÖ is a failure like this, a great deal of trauma. And in order to get over these traumas he begins to lash out left and right.

Having tied so much hope to the result of a referendum that had not taken place inevitably makes it hard to accept the result

. That is why what will convince the CHP and Kılıçdaroğlu can be neither a recount of the votes nor the repetition of the elections. The problem is nothing other than a truly serious psychological case.

Of course, let us admit that for the CHP, seeking consolation far away, the YSK's statement and practice concerning "unsealed ballot papers" has constituted a serious refuge

. It fixated on this event. Yet seeking consolation in this event is futile, because even if the unsealed ballot papers were counted as invalid, it would not explain the roughly 1 million 380 thousand more votes by which "yes" came out ahead of "no."

First of all, an envelope's being unsealed does not show that the vote inside it is definitely "no"; it only means that the officials at the ballot box, each of which certainly has a CHP member and an HDP member at its head, inadvertently neglected to seal the envelope. It is not as if the envelopes were brought in from outside and thrown into the ballot box.

Indeed, in each of the 194,310 ballot boxes set up in Turkey there is a CHP and an HDP ballot box official, and from none of them has any complaint or objection about such fraud come during the elections so far.

Both the total of the envelopes inadvertently used unsealed does not affect the result even if all of them are assumed to be "no," and, since this decision was taken before the ballot boxes were opened, it is more probable that these unsealed ballot papers are proportional between "yes" and "no" votes.

For that reason the psychological state in the CHP's trying to find consolation by attributing its own defeat to this event is understandable, but its attempting to damage the legitimacy of an election with it is unacceptable.

This country and this nation are not obliged to pay such heavy prices for the CHP's psychological fixations.

EXPLANATION:

1. In the interview I gave to the BBC,

while trying to explain that attributing the ballot results coming out below our expectations to the existence of fraud is a psychological reflex of repair, I tried to explain, in turn, that the "yes" votes too came out below my own personal expectation, but that this does not automatically give a right to say that the election results were "rigged" or "stolen." Although no such meaning comes out of the flow of the interview text, I had to read news items on websites attributing to me that the "yes" votes had been stolen.

2.

In the same interview, in response to a question,

I said "it cannot be known how many votes the MHP supporters cast, and on the contrary, as far as we can see, they cast quite a lot of votes,"

yet on some websites, again attributed to the same interview, it was written that I said "the MHP supporters did not vote 'yes'." There is the dimension of making up what was not heard in these news makers, we understand, but I find it hard to understand where the ability to understand the text in front of them in exactly the opposite way comes from.