The meaning of Parliament and the parliamentary podium

One cannot enter Parliament in summer attire. One cannot eat inside the Parliament, nor can one engage in unprofessional behavior. One cannot use inappropriate language at the parliamentary podium. So, what do these and a series of other rules, customs, or traditions have to do with Parliament and the parliamentary podium? Or what is the reason for the privileged position of Parliament and its podium? To put it in a single sentence, an orator speaking at the parliamentary podium is speaking on behalf of the people they represent with their own voice and expression. Anyone who curses from the podium must be aware that they are cursing on behalf of the people they represent and must think: did their people, while casting their votes, also grant them the authority to curse from the parliamentary podium? Likewise, regardless of the reason, who has the right to attack the person speaking at the podium? Did the attacker's voters, while casting their votes, also grant them the authority to attack the speaker at the podium if they cannot control their temper? This authority may have been granted to the attacker by a party official, either implicitly or explicitly, but the authority regarding the parliamentary podium and actions directed toward it lies not with any politician, but in the implicit will of the voters. If we can understand these issues and put them in their proper place, we might have taken the first step in parliamentary democracy. I may have exaggerated a bit in our social structure where everything is diluted, but in the abstract, this is the problem or the issue. The simplest proof of this is that members of parliament are not held responsible for the speeches they make at the podium. Whether we call it parliamentary immunity or legislative immunity, behind it all lies neither an inherent property of the podium itself nor a property inherent to the personality of the speaker. The only reason is that the will of the people is embodied in the parliament or the podium, and personified in the parliamentarian.   

The protective shield called parliamentary immunity exists because speeches made from the podium are made on behalf of the people being represented. The parliament where these rules are best protected is likely the British Parliament, the place where parliamentary tradition first emerged. Indeed, our citizens who have watched the debates in the British Parliament on the BBC channel may have seen how parliamentarians can express even the harshest words to one another with such subtlety and wit, without the need for any physical activity. In some cases of traffic violations, I believe the offending driver is sentenced to attend traffic classes for a period of time. It would be meaningful to make it mandatory for parliamentarians to watch sessions of the British Parliament at certain intervals, I think. However, it is possible that parliamentarians who have entered parliament with the sole goal of catching the eye of their party leader to guarantee their candidacy for the next term might watch these displays not as a lesson, but on the contrary, as a subject of ridicule. Once upon a time, the fact that a decision by the US President could not pass through a board was not understood in Turkey; after all, how could a decision by a president, especially a US president, be turned back! It is when we can understand and find this situation reasonable that we can first become human, and then a leader or president! But it seems there is still a long time to go before reaching this stage.

In the advanced parliamentary structures of developed countries, unfortunately, there are two other important differences that we do not have but must absolutely learn. One of these is that parliamentarians are not slaves to their party leaders, but representatives of the nation. In parliamentary decisions, parliamentarians do not vote according to the orders of the party leader; everyone votes, or should vote, according to their own knowledge, conscience, and the preferences of their voter base! The reason for this also points to the same point. Namely, it is desired that the parliamentarian, whom the voters send to parliament and support with their salaries, be not just a two-legged creature, but also a brain. Unfortunately, contrary to the will of the voters, this is exactly what the leader does not want! If votes are always cast under the orders of the party chairman in our parliament, why are we paying salaries to so many deputies? And why do we not question the pathology of party lordship, which is established analogously to village lordship, and why do we not oppose this disease!   

The second issue that differs in advanced parliaments from ours is that for any law or discussion proposal submitted to parliament, regardless of who submitted the proposal, everyone evaluates the proposal according to the national interest and uses their personal judgment accordingly. The grave situation seen in our parliament is again a complete pathology that hurts the public conscience. How can it be that every proposal of the government is suitable for the public interest, but every proposal submitted by the opposition, either individually or collectively, is contrary to the public interest? Since there cannot be such a logical proposition, it is clear that deputies are using their votes according to the orders of their party chairmen, not according to social interest, but with an understanding of irreconcilable opposition between parties. I sincerely want to ask: Can deputies who act like robots sleep peacefully when they put their heads on their pillows on the night of a vote, or do they continue their lives happily and contentedly with the thought that they will be included in the party list in the next term and will not be deprived of their lucrative salaries! Do the government supporters who reject a series of research proposals just because they came from the opposition, relying on parliamentary supremacy, not perform a conscience check for the rest of their lives? For example, in the recent fight incident, what kind of human morality is it that they initially agreed on a reasonable level of punishment for both deputies, and then, as it is said, changed their opinions and decisions with a phone call and complied with the decision communicated to them? Are those who changed their decisions in the vote in question, as well as those who created this incident, at peace today? In an era where humans should not be slaves to humans, regardless of who the call comes from, such a culture of allegiance can only exist in tribal societies. 

Let's come to the aforementioned fight scene. First, it must be stated that regardless of the environment, no one has the right to use ugly expressions from the parliamentary podium. This issue is not merely a matter of personal courtesy, but far beyond that, it is a matter of the parliamentary podium being the office where the voice of the people is heard. Whoever takes that podium is speaking with a great burden on their shoulders. Every speaker must be aware of this. Well, even if such inappropriate expressions that could constitute a crime are used at the podium, no one has the freedom to attack the speaker at the podium, because an attack on the speaker is also an attack on the podium. Since the person speaking at the parliamentary podium is speaking on behalf of the people, an attack on the speaker is simultaneously an attack on the speaker's freedom to speak on behalf of the nation. To put it more directly, since the parliamentary podium is used on behalf of the nation, a concrete attack on the speaker at the podium is an attack on the freedom of the people due to the autonomy of the podium. This attack cannot and should not go unpunished in any way.

The AKP has a neighborhood policy. That is to pit the people against each other, constantly consolidating its own front to maintain its minimum threshold in elections. This method is a tactic to guarantee an election. However, while this policy can be a guarantee for the government in the short term, in the long term, it melts the social cement, leads to the disintegration of society, and thus grinds the axes of internal and external enemies of society. Perhaps this policy could also be a strategic plan whispered by the imperialist! The rise of chaos by dragging society into unrest may give a green light to the survival plans of the AKP, which is in a difficult situation, but this trend is against social peace and tranquility. Just as society is tired of military interventions, it is also tired of states of emergency and the unnecessary harsh management style that reminds one of martial law. Politics is not conducted according to the personal temperament or scenario of a political figure, but according to social and political rules and, most importantly, a transparent and independent legal system. In the recent traffic incident reflected in the media, the fact that a plainclothes police officer drew his gun and harassed a citizen with shouts of "do you know who I am" is an unimaginable barbarism. The duty of a plainclothes or uniformed police officer is not to harass the public, but on the contrary, to help and support them when they see they are in a difficult situation. But that is, unfortunately, the area where society is being dragged with AKP adaptations. This example is an example of physical violence. The method that the AKP applies in entrance exams for public institutions is, as it reflects on the public, the reflection of physical violence as social violence into the social and even working field. Unfortunately, these two areas of violence are of a nature that supports each other.

In today's world, there is no place for such intolerant, rude events. We must clearly understand that while we think we can handle our affairs internally by becoming harsh, the outside world is isolating us from its own realm, and instead of looking to change and create a more decent society for ourselves, we are reheating the same meal and putting it on stage without changing even a millimeter. What can the West do!