Is there such a dictatorship? Is there such a democracy?

As we head swiftly toward the June 24 elections, the fierce criticisms the presidential candidates direct at one another at rallies, even if they sometimes sink to a demoralizing level, can be seen, looking on the bright side, as a sign of the level that democracy and freedom of expression have reached in Turkey. Those who, during the transition to the presidential system, criticized it fiercely on the pretext that it would lead to all powers being gathered in one hand, and therefore to dictatorship, now see that in this system a brand-new hope has been born for themselves.

The country's President, of whom it is complained that he is a dictator, tirelessly, without rest, going from square to square, asks the people again for a mandate for five years. In doing so he makes everyone feel, with every word and every movement, that the boss is not himself but the people from whom he asks for a mandate. Is there another example in the world of such a dictatorship? How many dictators have passed through the world who acted knowing, making felt, and doing what it requires, that the mandate they received is valid only until the next election?

He is such a dictator that his opponents criticize him from morning to night, in every square, on every channel, in every kind of media and setting, knocking him down, and he answers them. When the opponents make their criticisms recklessly, even to the point of insults, this is regarded as the "right to oppose," but when the President answers these criticisms in the same tone, they label it authoritarianism.

Frankly, the only reason the President's words are felt as authoritarianism is nothing other than the power of truth in their content. Is not the real meaning of authority a little this too? The authority to say the word at the right place, with its correctness, its competence and its appropriateness. They want the President either not to speak at all or, when he speaks, not to let his authority speak in such a way that it would expose their own empty words.

They actually want the square empty. What they reveal with the charge of dictator is nothing other than their own longing for dictatorship. Yet the President nullifies the sultanate on which they have been established until now, demolishes authority, builds an alternative political language. While demolishing the habitual discourse of power at home, he challenges the authority of the five sovereigns in the world, saying "the world is bigger than five." That is why it is not surprising that a strong support from the world rushes to the aid of those who fall short in the struggle while accusing him of authoritarianism at home.

There is a picture on social media that brings together all the foreign publications that portray Erdoğan as a "dictator." Could there be a more dangerous, fascist-like authoritarianism than this unity of discourse that invites Erdoğan to be lynched? The fraudulent consensus game of a contemptible authoritarianism that hides behind the mask of public opinion, that dares not discuss anything honestly, that tries to destroy the alternative with perception games. This game was set up for the world order consisting of five, which has been going on since the beginning, to continue exactly as it was established.

Yet today the course of the presidential elections alone is more than enough to expose the fraudulence of all these perception games. As in all his election campaigns so far, Turkey's President is running around more than anyone, working more persuasively than anyone, more genuinely, more sincerely than anyone, and therefore getting better results than anyone. So far he has not won any election otherwise. He has not forced anyone to vote for him with his authority. He built his word with a genuineness that penetrates hearts, he had a strong story, and when he also put in more effort than anyone, his success became inevitable.

No different development is expected in the coming elections either. There is no one more genuine facing him. No one has emerged who can be more convincing. His rivals, with wild promises and irresponsible populism, opening the purse strings, can make promises beyond imagination. But their credibility is immediately measured and assessed.

There are people who believe these promises too, and these promises can find their buyers in the democracy market. But the democracy market also has a common sense, and it gives the final decision. They see very well that those who promise a job to one person from every family will, when they come to power with this irresponsible generosity, produce one more unemployed person in every family. Kılıçdaroğlu, by saying he will appoint 1 million teachers, extends an irresponsible bribe to a serious social demand. But faced with the announcer who asks how he will do this, he turns into a nightingale that has eaten mulberries, and then, playing the magpie on the rooftop, he ties the subject to students who have to go to their schools without breakfast.

FREEDOM FOR SILHO, OPPRESSION FOR YASIN BÖRÜ

On the democratic standard of this election, all that remains is "Sılho's captivity." (Calling Selahattin Demirtaş "Sılho" is not my preference; it is an expression voiced by his supporters in the squares, otherwise we would not be committing the error of calling someone by a name or nickname that he does not consider fitting for himself.)

Think about that again, if you like, by putting side by side the scene of Yasin Börü's brutal murder, along with scenes from the Hendek terror, and Sılho's provocative speeches and statements.

Sılho's imprisonment is not a political matter but a matter of terror, and the decision belongs to the judiciary. He was not arrested for his political views after becoming a candidate. He became a candidate while in custody on account of these crimes attributed to him together with strong evidence. A presidential or parliamentary candidacy must not be treated as an opportunity to escape a crime.