Is “Politically” Wagging a Finger a State of Being Caught Between Conscience and Ideological Brotherhood?

I don't think it would be wrong to say that the murder of Sinan Ateş is at the top of the list of the most striking murders of recent times.

Although the behind-the-scenes of the murder has not been fully clarified, the political identities of the perpetrators and the roles they assumed have continued to remain on the agenda.

In the trial, while some of the defendants received Aggravated Life Imprisonment for the crimes of “Premeditated Murder” and “Incitement” to this crime; others were sentenced for “Aiding” and “Shielding a Criminal.”

Although the sentences given were proportional to the charges brought, the failure to clarify the “political will” behind this “murder” was the subject of criticism from both the Ateş family and the public.

So much so that Sinan Ateş was too significant a political figure to be a party to a murder that could be attributed to an ordinary debt-credit relationship. Some sources even cast him in the role of the “future leader to head the MHP.”

At this point, one of the most debated topics was the file that Sinan Ateş allegedly handed over to MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli just before he fell victim to this assassination. Although it was not clarified during this trial process, it brought up allegations that factions uncomfortable with some of the information contained in this “file” had pressed the button for the murder.

It was noteworthy that some journalists such as İsmail Saymaz, Timur Soykan, and Barış Pehlivan, who kept these allegations and the debates that the investigation process was “thwarted by political influences” on the agenda, were targeted by MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli in his group meeting just one day before the verdict.

So much so that some MHP politicians, who were alleged to have incited the murder, had also broken their silence during the process and made statements in a way that is rarely seen within the party.

Speaking after the court verdict, Sinan Ateş's wife, Ayşe Ateş, recorded a statement targeting the prosecutors of the investigation by saying, “the foot soldiers were tried, the instigators of the murder are walking around freely.”

These words also brought with them the debate that an “incomplete decision” was made in a trial conducted with a “half-indictment.” Because the debate that the “behind-the-scenes” instigators of a murder that was clearly committed with “political motives” could not be brought before the court actually carried a meaning beyond the general state of distrust in the judiciary.

Another discourse that cannot be thought of separately from this debate was MHP leader Bahçeli's statements targeting CHP Chairman Özgür Özel. In his group meeting, Bahçeli addressed Özel, who kept this murder file on the agenda, with the words: “your claims are as rotten as you are; the wet wood you step on, the minibus with flat tires you board, and the slanderous acrobatics you are a prisoner of will not take you anywhere.”

Just a few hours after this discourse, Bahçeli's words to Özgür Özel, whom he encountered at the legislative year opening reception, “We are not hurting each other, I hope. Don't be sad! Sometimes there are things we need to say politically,” became the focus of the debate. Although this speech was subject to criticism in terms of “political ethics,” it was not much addressed in terms of Bahçeli's approach to the Sinan Ateş murder.

In that speech, Bahçeli had targeted Özel, who drew attention to the political connections of the Sinan Ateş murder, through the words: “There are only hitmen here, there are intermediaries. Some of the main instigators are under pressure in the other file, which has a confidentiality order, saying 'Please issue a non-prosecution decision' for that file.”

So, did Bahçeli's words “sometimes there are things we need to say politically” also carry the purpose of a confession regarding the protection of some of his ideological brothers whose names were mentioned in the murder? Could such a meaning be attributed to it? In my opinion, this would be an allegation that should not be ignored.

Could Devlet Bahçeli, who is caught between his conscience and certain factions within the party, have expressed his true thoughts with the explanation of “things we need to say politically”? While what Bahçeli said “politically” is clear, in my opinion, what he could not say “conscientiously” still continues to maintain its mystery.

I am aware that there are many people from different camps who will not agree with this interpretation. Bahçeli's state of wagging his finger at journalists and the main opposition with great anger at the group meeting may be covering up many things.

However, with a little skepticism, how wrong would it be to infer that he might be feeling the exact opposite in his conscience and mind?