Betrayal

Nazım Hikmet brings tremendous clarity to the concept of treachery with his poem 'Traitor to the Homeland' (Vatan Haini), stating that siding with traitors also constitutes an act of betrayal. Those who accuse him of treason do not want to face themselves, for they would not be pleased with the truth they would see in the mirror.

The issue of betrayal should be approached from this perspective: by confronting it, by revealing the truth, and by recalling the affiliations, belongings, and loyalties one holds. What is a person betraying, where does their malice begin, and whom are they harming? It is not very meaningful to speak of betrayal without exploring the answers to these questions.

We encounter betrayal across a wide spectrum, from interpersonal relationships to values, beliefs, and ideologies. The world is a place where both the good and the bad exist. There is the honorable as well as the dishonorable, goodness as well as evil. Moreover, in the age we live in, this situation is unfortunately evolving in favor of evil. The system in which the world finds itself produces a consciousness that favors malice. It rewards power, sycophancy, and wealth, not honesty, morality, or sharing. It prioritizes the self, the tribe, or the community, rather than society.

In such a world, from the moment a person begins to perceive life, they encounter the reality of betrayal and the allure of this reality. This is a harsh but painful aspect of the matter. Therefore, one should not think of betrayal independently of social conditions. On the other hand, the subject of affiliation, which we mentioned at the beginning of the article, needs to be further explored.

Let us begin, then.

Affiliation generally refers to being part of a set of relationships and the loyalty to it. This can be a belief, a thought, an ideology, or even a family. We have an acceptance regarding the place we claim to belong to: we say that we embrace the claims, approvals, or objections, and the values there; we define ourselves through that identity and participate in life from that point. It is precisely at this point that betrayal appears before us in two different forms.

First, a person abandons the values they have embraced, moves in the opposite direction, and engages in aggressive behavior toward the area they previously belonged to. However, the affiliation that the person claims to hold may not reflect reality. It is possible for a person to include themselves in a group precisely to commit treason. Once their task is finished, they leave that place and reveal their betrayal. It is easy to talk about betrayal in such a field; the perpetrator is visible, and their actions are clear. But betrayal does not always reveal itself so easily. Then we can move on to the second type of betrayal.

Here, the person says they have not abandoned their claims: for example, they are Muslim, Alevi, Socialist, or Kemalist, but the life they lead corresponds to another reality, a separate world. They are Muslim, but they use this for their personal interests, future plans, and career calculations. When the time comes, the prayer they recite, the photograph they appear in, or the historical figures they defend serve as a step in their career process. Mosque or Cemevi, it makes no difference; for the person engaged in betrayal, that place is not a sanctuary, but a position or an arsenal where they will receive the support of the world they are part of. Their reason for being there is to make their power visible, to bring their supporters together, and to consolidate the mass support they will have behind them. Otherwise, there is no sincerely felt affiliation, no deep heartfelt bond. The relationship they establish with faith is a kind of merchant relationship. They look at life through the balance of trade. They focus on the values they will sell. At such a time, they put their religion, their faith, and the values they believe in up for sale. Depending on the promises offered, the values to be sold are also put on display. The moment trade begins, all channels of betrayal are opened.

A similar situation can be cited for individuals, parties, or institutions that claim to hold socialist thought. What socialist claim can we speak of for a structure that ignores all principles of socialism such as sharing, equality, and solidarity, gets lost in bourgeois relationships, and furthermore, acts with a capitalist spirit and becomes an element of intra-system politics? If actions are committed according to a capitalist mentality, is there any need to discuss the name of the perpetrator? For example, can someone who falls into the wake of the bourgeoisie under the name of journalism remain a socialist? Similarly, how can someone who claims to own socialism only by its name, while running their party or institution like a capitalist company and acting like a boss rather than a comrade, hold onto their claim with any loyalty? We can multiply the questions, but the point we have reached is now clear: wherever there is exploitation, rent-seeking, and interest calculations, there will be no shortage of traitors.

As we conclude our article here, let us emphasize that the more widespread betrayal is in a society, the more that society is doomed to lose its human values, its future, and a virtuous life. It is the citizens who make up the homeland; because virtue, morality, identity, and values flourish there, boundaries are drawn there, and 'destiny' reveals itself there.