Let one wise man pull out the stone forty fools threw

We said that the most important responsibility that the picture emerging after the election places on politicians is an approach that strengthens the positive ground that exists for a new constitution. I am aware that the relationship between politics and responsibility is in fact a very problematic one. Politics is a field in which it is not usual for anyone to have a priority other than spoiling the other's position. In such a field we expect everyone to show a special sensitivity for a common goal. Even if this sensitivity is for a new, libertarian, civil, democratic constitution based on human rights and dignity, every party and every actor has different expectations and definitions regarding all these concepts. Politics, after all, is a field of struggle around these very concepts, which everyone defines differently and over which they have different interests. So what kind of overarching reason could there have been to prompt us to be optimistic about the post-election picture regarding a new constitution?

Truly, the subject is under the influence of a wind that requires it to be handled beyond a bit of optimism and pessimism. This is one reason for a view that could be counted as optimism for a new constitution. It could be said that a minimum line of consensus had formed for a new, civil constitution. Yet the other, more real nature of politics did not delay in showing itself. It once again emerged that those who had been swept up before the election by the discourse of a new, democratic, civil constitution approached it only as a discourse, in terms of its value as a bond for votes.

In the end, before two weeks had passed since the elections, the broad political space created by the elections came under an increasingly great siege.

The YSK's stripping of the deputyship of the BDP's Hatip Dicle, the court's decision to continue the detention of Balbay and Haberal, who were elected deputies from the CHP while detained in the Ergenekon case, and a similar decision waiting its turn for Engin Alan, elected from the MHP... All these situations have become a more important consequence of the election we have lived through, in terms of determining the democratic process, than the vote distribution it produced.

That detention continues although one has been elected a Deputy by the people's votes is presented as a drama of democracy. Does anyone remember that those who say this, especially those from the CHP, have for the last 8 years defended no thesis in Turkish politics other than the lifting of immunities? After placing so much emphasis on the lifting of immunities, what kind of mind places defendants detained for "staging a coup and changing the democratic constitutional order by force of arms" in the most guaranteed places on the candidate lists?

The annulment of Hatip Dicle's deputyship after he received 80 thousand votes is a great shame. Once things have come to this point, there is truly nothing else that can be said. But should we pass over in silence how those who brought things to this point are making fun of all our intelligence? That Dicle, under the existing laws (like those laws or not), could not be a candidate was learned, at least by himself, on 22 March. His lawyers and his party know this. It is also known that one of the members of the Court of Cassation who confirmed the ruling is at the same time a member of the YSK. So the YSK too knows this situation. Despite this, no objection is raised to Dicle's candidacy at this stage. It had been turned a blind eye to up to this stage; let the YSK at least go on playing this game of revenge after he was elected. No, there it suddenly remembers the law and gives that decision.

Upon this YSK decision the BDP members do not surprise at all, they immediately launch into the language of threat, blackmail and war. However much of whichever problem they will solve when they resort to this language... They continue to gamble generously with the lives of Kurdish young men. One would think that the votes they have received give them the authority to dispose as they wish of the lives of Kurdish youth.

On the one hand the CHP members because of the Ergenekon detainees, on the other the BDP members because of Dicle and the KCK detainees, and on yet another the MHP because of Engin Alan, again an Ergenekon detainee, lay on the government, as responsible, the quandary they themselves caused. Yet they made a choice on the candidate lists, and all of them knew that this choice would have such a result. In order to avoid similar situations, the AK Parti, displaying an unnecessarily excessive sensitivity, had refrained from placing headscarved candidates on its candidate list, even failing to respond to a heavy and intense demand from its own base. Yet the mines that the other three parties laid before the election are being detonated one by one, and as a result the ground for a new constitution, which could have been the most auspicious outcome of the election process, is gradually being irresponsibly destroyed.

This paradox, to whose formation everyone has contributed with great zeal and officiousness, everyone again expects the governing party to solve.

No one tries to contribute to the solution of these problems; while everyone busies themselves with enlarging the problem, they also leave the government alone with these enlarged problems. Setting aside responsibility, this must be what they understand from opposition.

In the end such a picture emerges that, as it were, everyone is busy throwing stones into a well. And "one wise man, Tayyip Erdoğan" is expected to pull out all these stones alone. Let us see whether Erdoğan's political mind and common sense will find a way to pull out these stones. And while he pulls out these stones, will the others continue to fill the well with stones?