Who is polarizing, who is polarizing and why?

Society, by its nature, is a structure inhabited by people who differ from one another, people with different economic, social and cultural characteristics and political tendencies. That these differences can live together within a certain harmony and concord, even a division of labor, is possible in part through the balance established by the political order of that society. This balance is secured by the level of consent that political power achieves in society. Securing absolute consent in society, in turn, is possible by satisfying all segments, which is in any case the most difficult, even impossible, thing. What unifying element could hold together the expectations created by so much difference?

Perhaps for this reason, interests and expectations in society that cannot be reconciled with one another can be held together by a unifying, glue-like ideology, a social narrative, a definition of nation, and thus a common set of values.

Perhaps for this reason the concept of the nation emerges as one of the most important mortars holding together a society that could not otherwise live together. This nation can be based on race, language, dynasty, religion or an entirely new story. What matters is that people can renounce enough of their own interests to secure unity in order to live together.

This, in fact, means that a human being realizes that living in society is a blessing, that this blessing produces an indebtedness, and that in order to pay this debt he must be somewhat tolerant and forbearing.

Civilization is a structure that can be built by those who realize this indebtedness. We are all indebted to one another. We are indebted to nature. Above all, we are indebted to God. The social division of labor makes everyone indebted to everyone. Medina, that is, city life, the essence of civilization, is the most important expression of this indebtedness of ours.

The word comes from "din" just as it comes by way of "deyn." Deyn, that is, debt. We are indebted to everyone who lives in the city. The opportunities the city offers us are each a blessing, and everyone living in the city has a contribution to this blessing. We can only discharge this debt by doing our own work in the best way and by feeling respect and gratitude toward others.

If everyone saw himself as indebted, the city would turn into a perfect world built by those who treat one another with courtesy. Yet the problem comes from everyone seeing himself as a creditor before being a debtor. Everyone, though not seeing his own debt, acts with the feeling of being a creditor and goes after collecting his debt in the most aggressive manner.

Of course, logically, if everyone is in some way indebted to one another, everyone is also a creditor to one another. But the bad side of the matter is that people act with the superiority of the creditor without carrying any sense of debt.

A scene described in this way grounds morality rather, but the parties' observance of morality is not independent of the dynamics of politics either. The political field, at precisely this point, is organized starting from people's claims rather than their debts, and inevitably turns into a field of conflicts.

For precisely this reason, although it is morally hard to accept and bitter, the definition of politics as a friend-enemy relationship by Carl Schmitt, the famous German political philosopher, unfortunately describes what is actually in force. Today it seems almost impossible for politics to function as a field of solidarity.

The perception the government constantly complains about, that "the opposition does nothing but say black to what we call white and white to what we call black, does not appreciate any good, constantly focuses on negatives and favors a negative discourse," leads nowhere other than the operation of this rule of enmity in politics.

I felt like entering this deep subject a bit by looking at the attitude the opposition has displayed in the face of the fire disaster we are living through.

Disasters are expected to develop in a society a common language, feeling and attitude of sensitivity. Indeed, disasters are expected to bring about a rapprochement for the solidarity of a society, and therefore between lives, outlooks and attitudes that are normally divided, and normally this is what happens. Yet we face a scene in which even such a disaster divides people further. The haste to turn even a disaster that has broken out into material and grounds for enmity shows that society has been carried away more than enough by politics' friend-enemy conception.

The opposition has no ease left in looking at any event. The language they use is a perfect language of rancor, hatred and hostility. Their way of owning the country leaves no room at all for the idea that there is a place for everyone living in this country. They look at the elected rulers of this country as though they were enemies who happened to seize this country, even if by elections.

That is why they do not refrain from stating that they see even the elections, already, as a way or opportunity for a purge and a massacre.

Despite all this, are they not also displaying the brazenness of speaking about polarization? Who in reality excludes, who uses the polarizing language, what about reminding them of the tally?

In fact, this country has also passed through times governed by this understanding. May God never give another opportunity.