Those who speak of their coup while displaying valour

The illegal structure that fell under the delusion of making a show of power and body through the fight against corruption and bribery, of displaying its valor to all and sundry, exposed its theft as well while displaying its valor.

If the unit that fights corruption itself acts with the logic of corruption, and recklessly enters fields where it has no legitimate basis or authority, it is as clear as day that the corruption it uncovers will lead not to the cleansing of society but to more pollution. When a coup is carried out against a legitimate government, whatever the wrongs that set the coup in motion, the military coup itself is a crime, an immorality, a rape. There has never been a military coup that, thanks to the pretexts it concocted, failed to find sufficient public support for itself.

Today, one more coup attempt, called December 17, has been written into our history. This coup, like the others, aimed to overthrow the legitimate government by illegitimate means, produced a series of fabricated pretexts to that end, and, to prove the validity of those pretexts, first betrayed the truth by distorting it in the most revolting ways through the skill of the media units attached to it, and of course was badly caught red-handed in the process.

The February 7 coup attempt was carried out through prosecutors who summoned the MİT Undersecretary to testify while the prime minister was ill. When a person who holds all the security secrets and responsibility of a country becomes touchable at the distance of a prosecutor's summons to testify, only useful fools take pride in the name of the independence of that judiciary. Even so, this coup attempt could have been brushed aside as a prosecutor's presumptuousness, but the same publishing group's going on, with all its staff and insistently, to defend this presumptuousness made sure the coup would not remain of unknown perpetrator.

For people who are members of civil society or the community to come into this or that position within the state is normally never a problem in a democratic society. The social and cultural affiliations of those who assume a post are not examined either. For years we fought in Turkey for this citizenship criterion to hold. But for these structures, among themselves, to move toward a separate organization in such a way as to bypass the state hierarchy, to use state authority and act independently of the state, exceeds the limits of legitimacy of civil society. This means it has taken on a form that threatens the security of society.

The strange junta that confronts us on December 17 takes its authority or legitimacy not from the state but only from the air of fighting corruption, which it gives the impression of having caught hold of for once. But while doing so, because it acts independently of the working of the state machinery, it creates great tension in the whole of society.

It would normally be expected that anti-corruption and cleanup moves would lead to relief in the economy and on the stock exchange, and, for example, that the stock exchange would rise in response. Because fighting corruption gives the market confidence and makes it feel that the economy will now work more justly and fairly. Yet from the hour the operation began, the stock exchange met this course with anxiety, and within a few days a loss reaching thirty billion dollars occurred. This is the size of the bill presented to the orphans in the very first stage of such an operation, which also sells slogans about protecting the rights of orphans to the hilt.

Until just two weeks ago we were debating the prep school issue. At that time, looking at the exaggerations, accusations and campaigns in the unbelievable propaganda displayed by the Samanyolu, Bugün and Zaman publishing group, I had thought that the matter could not consist of the prep schools alone and had stated my prediction. I think someone at the top was trying to make the Community's base resentful toward the AK Parti and to place an irreparable rift between it and the AK Parti. In this way it would perhaps have been easier to move the community's base to another party. I neglected to add that there the community's share of the vote was actually not important at all. I did indeed know that the community would not speak in any election against the AK Parti merely with the vote share it controlled or by steering those votes, but frankly even I had not predicted this form.

Those acting in the name of the Community have shown that they recognize no limits in the anti-AK Parti campaign they have conducted so far. Yet it seems there is hardly anyone who does not know that they themselves have benefited most from AK Parti rule until now. What kind of calculation they are in, one that would make it worthwhile from their point of view to write off this benefit in the new period, is a subject worth wondering about.

What is it an expression of, that the Hocaefendi throws himself with all his being into the field of conflict in a way that risks all his respectability? What is it an expression of, that he now displays toward believers this violence and wrathfulness that he has not resorted to until now against the sworn enemies of Islam (far from resorting to it, while he had constantly approached them with dialogue and tolerance)?

What is the source of the feelings that lead him, as a verdict, in the face of behavior contrary to law, morality, religion and conscience, to take the matter as far as mutual cursing? I am genuinely curious.

That fury, that anger, which has not been shown until now to people who have openly declared war on God and His Prophet, where did the need for it suddenly arise now?

Yet for behavior, attitudes and discourse contrary to law, morality, religion and conscience, he need not go very far. It suffices for him to look at the publications and style of the Samanyolu, Zaman and Bugün publishing group. If he can find law, conscience, reason, morality, ethics, affection there, what can we say? God is above. He is just; He will give the best judgment in the matters on which people differ. Have no doubt about it.