The pains of those who cannot weep

There are 27 articles to be voted on in the September 12 Referendum, but the subject has come down to September 12. It can be seen that both the AK Parti side and the other parties are concentrating all their campaigns on September 12. In fact, there is no harm in the subject revolving around September 12 if, once we dwell on it more thoroughly, we understand that September 12 is not a very special day but rather a mindset that can confront us on all 365 days of the year. Moreover, once we understand that the present structure of the HSYK, the trial of civilians in military courts, the placing of Supreme Military Council decisions outside judicial review, and the situation of the Constitutional Court are all ultimately products of the September 12 constitution, we will be saved from reducing the subject merely to provisional Article 15.

The repeal of provisional Article 15 of the Constitution, which protects those who carried out the September 12 coup, will not in the end merely make possible the trial of the September 12 men. It will also ensure that the judgment of the people takes effect regarding all kinds of military interference in politics on the other 364 days of the year. For this, it is not very important that 94-year-old Kenan Evren actually be tried and thrown into prison. That wanting this in itself has by now turned thoroughly into a feeling of revenge and hatred also shows itself very clearly from time to time in the light of the recent debates. Yet the very fact that these debates are being held already constitutes the greatest punishment for those coup makers. To want more than that, to desire a punishment to be actually inflicted on Evren's body, appeals to feelings of revenge and hatred rather than to a sense of justice, and there is no auspicious destination to which we could go by following these feelings. Yet the removal of the obstacle to trials over September 12 is directly relevant to the conviction of the perpetrators of February 28, April 27, Ayışığı, Yakamoz and Balyoz as well.

Those who find the trial of September 12 meaningless because of the statute of limitations are either those who do not care at all about fresher, current coup attempts or those who regard these coups as legitimate. Even if they have had a problem with September 12, they have no serious problem with coups. A coup is bad only if it has touched them, and they are of the mind of "long live a thousand years" for a coup that has not touched them.

And there is an objection voiced by Kılıçdaroğlu against the AK Parti's anti-September 12 discourse: "These people were not tortured, these people did not pay the bill on September 12," and so they amount to saying that these people have no right to settle accounts with September 12, nor to try it, nor to voice the sufferings endured there.

When this logic is examined a little, it is in fact a logic that would bankrupt and corrupt all conditions of morality and ethics. That is, it amounts to saying that you cannot voice the pain of a coup that has not touched you.

What does this mean now?

That is, everyone is being counseled to remain indifferent to an injustice not done to himself, which is no different from saying that no one can share another's pain.

I wish Kılıçdaroğlu would also try to share in the suffering of those who suffered because of the headscarf oppression, that he could feel in his heart and weep for the pain of the girls who had to cut their schooling short because of the headscarf and were subjected to every kind of humiliation in school corridors... I assure you no one would call him hypocritical. If there are votes he will gain from this, may it be lawful and blessed for him. To be troubled for others, to grieve over the troubles of others, to sing another's folk song are among the values that most should not be touched, that should not be exhausted politically.

Sufferings that have been inflicted on humanity as a black mark cannot be parceled out or appropriated. That everyone feels those pains in his heart is one of the most important occasions that will reconnect people who have become politically scattered and divided. When this occasion has arisen, to push it away with the back of one's hand is a racist attitude established by appropriating those pains. Parceling out pains and treating these parcels of pain as a forbidden zone, I fear this is the real exploitation, and for a person to exploit the pain suffered by himself or his own community, to turn this pain into a property, reflects a kind of boorishness and just as much ugliness. .

One could also spin a great deal of literature about weeping, especially about the weeping of a political leader; I have no room for it, but I cannot pass without saying this. Being able to weep is a thoroughly human virtue, a sign of emotionality, sincerity, authenticity and compassion, and it is a trait that atrophies over time in politicians. A prime minister who weeps before the emotionality of the event he is recounting inspired much more confidence in me, I do not know about you. It evoked the feeling that we are being governed by a compassionate, authentic person who has not lost his feelings.

By contrast, I paid no attention at all to the reactions of those whose hearts have never trembled in the face of all the injustice we have lived or are living. I see questioning the authenticity of these tears only as an expression of heartlessness. What feelings can we expect those who make weeping with tenderness and compassion a subject of criticism to preserve toward those they govern?