İnce's heartfelt speeches: much talk is not without lies

In election campaigns, public rallies are the opportunities in which candidates express themselves to the people at their best, can receive the strongest and most effective response from the truth, and, if they wish, can adjust themselves for the next step accordingly. But they are also the settings where slips of the tongue are most frequent, where a person gets a little carried away and is sometimes tempted to say whatever comes to his mouth without control. The slogans shouted by that crowd, the answers given to those slogans, the unexpected reactions the square gives to any remark can sometimes force speakers to make statements they never wanted to make, even to determine their own party's policy. One day it puts you on a bicycle, another day it makes you stand on your hands. That is why managing the dialogue in the square well is one of the most important matters of political communication.

Public rallies are an entirely distinct medium of political communication. How to use it effectively and soundly is a distinct field of expertise, and it cannot be said that everyone respects this field of expertise to the same degree or benefits from its data. Some get up on the podium and speak with a scatteredness that has no beginning or end, jumping from subject to subject like a magpie on a rooftop, and by thereby dragging the matter out all the more, they can turn the rally into a complete torment for the participants.

This is the mistake into which those who insist on improvised speech "in the name of self-confidence" often fall. However talented the speaker may be, managing a rally crowd is not like managing a conference or a hall meeting. We witness speakers whom the rally carries away. They can reach the point where their ears do not hear what comes out of their mouths. At that moment the rush to produce a series of words that will save the situation and reach its target at once drives the speaker to produce many words.

As is well known, many words do not come without lies. And a rally demands many words.

Muharrem İnce and Meral Akşener compete with each other in the many words they cram into a short time. There is nothing they do not speak about, do not know, do not say. They speak as if they know everything and understand everything, but with this extravagance of words they display only their ignorance. Sometimes they speak as if raving, and then they give away their other connections, their sensitivities, their subconscious.

WHERE ARE YOU SENDING THE SYRIANS?

They talk, for example, about sending the Syrians back and tearing off epaulettes. In both they show how far they are from the concept and the practice of the state. Erdoğan, who is accused of being a dictator and has served 12 years as prime minister and 4 years as President, says: "even I have not been able to tear off anyone's epaulettes so far, because I have no such authority. Even tearing off a soldier's epaulettes has a procedure, and even a President is, first of all, not independent of this procedure."

On the matter of sending the Syrians away, they appeal to a momentary lynching or mass feeling that the crowd can easily fall for. No, they do not merely appeal to it; they incite that feeling, provoke it, and by serving fascism to that feeling on a plate, they commit a hate crime, a crime against humanity.

Meanwhile they once again display their ignorance. Sending an entire mass of refugees who have taken refuge in the country and been placed under humanitarian protection back to where they came from, against their will, violates UN refugee law, and a country that does so has again committed a crime against humanity; moreover, technically it is not possible anyway.

At present Turkey is writing an epic by accepting 4 million refugees, this is very clear, but from the moment it accepted these refugees it no longer has the option of sending them back whenever it pleases. This is now an obligation of the country. What remains is for the country, opposition and government together, to manage this situation and to accept them as a part of their own country. Who does not know, who does not see that this will lead to xenophobia, hatred and some other sociological problems? But precisely for that reason, in order that the country not lose its humanity, it becomes perhaps one of the most important issues on which it must reach consensus.

WHERE DO THE TIKA AND AFAD GRIEVANCES UNITE İNCE AND AKŞENER?

Akşener has fixated on the budgets of both these institutions, on the money they spend. It is not possible that she does not know that both institutions are important world institutions that run parallel to this very growth of rising Turkey, which has become the 17th largest economy in the world, and also feed this growth. Whoever is in power, these two institutions are now among the most functional, most important institutions of Turkey as a country of the world.

Turkey is not the richest country in the world. As we said, it is the 17th largest. I do not know in what other index we stand, but in humanitarian aid we are 1st. We know this very well. With this aid Turkey plays the role that its history and geography have placed upon it. But in undertaking to play this role it grows even more. Is it not clear enough what kind of Turkey is promised by someone who aspires to the presidency of Turkey without knowing this?

So from what kind of sensitivity might this antipathy toward AFAD and TIKA stem? Frankly, both these institutions, and let us add Yunus Emre among them and the IHH as a civil society organization, are institutions that are also targeted by FETÖ. There is no one who does not know the organizational hatred toward these institutions, which FETÖ regarded as rivals to the "parallel Turkey stall" it built abroad for years with himmet money. The anger of both Akşener and İnce toward both institutions links them in a way to the same root.

SPEAKING FROM GLASS AND SPEAKING FROM THE SOUL

Muharrem İnce has taken to his tongue, in the same casual style, that Erdoğan uses a prompter in his speeches. He said that he himself speaks from the soul while Erdoğan speaks from glass. If what is in his own soul is fascism, ignorance, love of FETÖ, what use is it to anyone that he speaks from there?

If only he too used a prompter, so that he would talk less nonsense and the suppressed fascism, ignorance or love of FETÖ inside him would come to daylight less. Its coming out is, to be sure, good in one respect, but alas, this situation spreads evil and incites it.

Since the occasion arises, it must be said that Erdoğan uses the prompter, as an opportunity, very successfully as an instrument that adds extra strength to his own style. In his own words, he does not speak from the prompter; he lives the prompter.

The others, while "speaking from the soul" with their self-appointed courage, cannot say anything but plagiarism.