CHP's Emir evaluates the standing ovation crisis in Parliament: It was a party decision

CHP Group Deputy Chairman Murat Emir made harsh criticisms regarding the new constitution debates, stating that Turkey's problems stem from the failure to comply with the current Constitution. Emir also stated that the decision to stand for Erdoğan in Parliament was a party decision.

Don't leave your news choices to an algorithm - decide for yourself what you read. Add 12punto to your preferred sources!

CHP's Emir evaluates the standing ovation crisis in Parliament: It was a party decision

CHP Group Deputy Chairman Murat Emir said that the party leadership deemed it appropriate to stand for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the opening of Parliament.

Touching upon the constitutional debates, Emir said, "The cause of the problems is that the Constitution is not being followed." Emir answered questions from Gazete Duvar's Ceren Bayar.

What kind of opposition will the CHP display in Parliament this term?

We see that Turkey is in the midst of very severe problems. Our citizens are being crushed under the problems of hunger, poverty, unemployment, and the inability to make ends meet. Therefore, their expectations from Parliament are for work to be done to resolve these problems. We will also bring everything that is on our people's agenda to the agenda in Parliament. We do not want things that are not on our people's agenda to become the agenda. It is unacceptable for the people to have one agenda and Parliament to have another, or for Parliament to become disconnected from the people's agenda.

We desire a Parliament that engages in responsible, reasonable, and qualified debates and stays away from violence. We will strive for a high-quality legislative process that both solves problems and does not contain articles that will be canceled by the Constitutional Court, which would not need to be changed shortly after because they were wrong.

THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED

You said you do not want issues that are not on the public's agenda to be on Parliament's agenda. Do you mean the new constitution?

One of them is the constitution. In this short period, we see that those who say 'we must make a new constitution' do not even comply with the current constitution. They did not promise Turkey more democracy, more judicial independence, more separation of powers, or more pluralism. Their practices are the exact opposite. Therefore, the cause of the problems Turkey is in is not that the constitution is too narrow, but on the contrary, that even the existing provisions of the constitution are not being followed.

THEY ARE MOCKING OUR INTELLIGENCE

Therefore, the claim of making a more libertarian, more democratic constitution is, in its current state, mocking our intelligence. If the current Constitution is followed, if Constitutional Court decisions are followed, if people in Turkey can easily exercise their rights and freedoms, and if, despite all this, we reach a point of 'let's expand these rights even further,' then of course we will talk.

Turkey certainly needs a civil, pluralistic, democratic, and libertarian constitution. But we see that there is no ground to hold this debate, and those who started this debate have no such intention. If they had such an intention, they would at least not avoid implementing even the internal provisions of this 12 September Constitution that they dislike so much.

Will your answer be within this framework when Parliament Speaker Numan Kurtulmuş knocks on your door tomorrow?

Of course, very clearly. While the provisions of the current Constitution are being trampled upon, while Constitutional Court decisions are not being followed, while shouts of 'we will close the Constitutional Court' are being made, and while European Court of Human Rights decisions are not being followed, it is unthinkable for us to believe those who say 'we will make a libertarian, democratic constitution' and to embark on a journey or sit at a table with them.

WE WANT TO SHOW THAT WE ARE AN ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT

How do you evaluate the criticisms regarding your group standing up for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the day Parliament opened?

We see that there is a problem with the President's legitimacy. But in terms of segments of society, in terms of those who say 'he is my president,' there is no legitimacy problem for the President. At this point, we do not see a problem in standing up out of respect for the office of the presidency, not for the President's personality. We see that this stance of ours is also widely welcomed by our party base.

This debate should not be blown out of proportion. But what we want to touch upon, what we want to explain to the segments of society we are reaching out to, is that 'there is an alternative government option in Turkey other than the AKP. The Republican People's Party, as the party that founded the state, is an alternative government.' Our goal is to offer an option to our citizens who are tired of these wrong policies of the AKP, who are struggling in poverty, and who are looking for an option; this is the essence of politics.

NOT STANDING UP IS A CHOICE

The fact that some of your deputies did not stand up was also highly debated.

We understand that some of our deputies did not stand up. Ultimately, this is a choice. There are certainly many qualities of the President that will be criticized by Republican People's Party politicians. Some of our friends say, 'I did not stand up because I could not stomach it, I did not enter.' This is a situation we will meet with understanding. After all, we are talking about deputies, and each of them has their own will.

What should be noted here is that the Chairman of the Republican People's Party and the Republican People's Party management deemed it appropriate to stand up. We did this through open communication.

We have not taken a step back from our criticisms of the President. But we evaluate standing up as a requirement of respect for the presidential office and as the completion of a ritual. It is not right to derive a major political meaning from this.

IT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH SERIOUSNESS

In his speech on October 1, the President said that Turkey is a target of Israel and that internal unity should be strengthened. How do you evaluate this rhetoric?

We express that we do not find these words of the President compatible with the respect and seriousness of the presidential office. As the person who fills the position of commander-in-chief in a state of war according to our Constitution, he should speak much more carefully.

Until just a year ago, there was a process where military cooperation with Israel was maintained at the highest level, friendship had progressed to the point of joking with Netanyahu, and mutual visits were planned. If there is a possibility of Israel claiming rights on Anatolian lands with a hope derived from its historical roots, it is contrary to reason that the President has just discovered this. If this was the case, why this friendship?

IF THERE IS INTELLIGENCE, PARLIAMENT SHOULD CONVENE

There is a Turkey that, until yesterday, had established communication with Israel at the highest level, had military cooperation at the highest level, had commercial cooperation at the highest level, and continued to export to Israel for months after the October 7 attacks. Therefore, we do not find it realistic to say today that 'Israel has its eyes on our lands, it may attack us.'

But still, if the state has information or intelligence that we do not know or see, the place where this should be discussed is the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. We think that after the President says 'Israel has its eyes on us,' that statement needs to be substantiated, and we say that Parliament should convene in an extraordinary session. We have conveyed this to the Speaker of Parliament. This request of ours is currently on the table.

ERDOĞAN IS A LEADER WHO CANNOT BE AT EASE WITHOUT CREATING AN ENEMY

There are those who interpret that there is an intention towards domestic politics behind this rhetoric of the President. Do you agree?

I believe that he is pointing to a war danger to close ranks over the economic difficulties of our citizens, the government's erosion day by day, and its inability to solve any problems. Tayyip Erdoğan is a leader who cannot be at ease without creating an external enemy, who cannot consolidate his votes, and who is a repeat offender in this regard. That external enemy is one day Greece, one day America, one day the European Union, one day Germany, one day the Netherlands, one day Iran, one day Egypt, one day Syria, and one day Israel.

We say everywhere that Israel is an aggressive and murderous state. But it is a completely separate situation of irresponsibility to make the already struggling Turkish economy even more uninvestable by saying 'Israel will attack us.'

BAHÇELİ'S ATTITUDE

MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli greeting DEM Party executives and having a sincere conversation with your Chairman Özgür Özel was talked about a lot. How do you evaluate this unexpected attitude of Bahçeli?

What is normal is for a minimum level of courtesy to exist between political parties. Handshakes or casual human conversations between parties are ordinary. What should be found strange here are those insults and threats. And it is Mr. Bahçeli who does this often. While he was threatening the Republican People's Party and journalists in the morning, his speaking differently in the evening should be evaluated as an expression of regret, and this should be viewed positively.

Other than that, we have no reason to believe that those who have given the harshest example of polarization in Turkey so far, those who have declared the other half of Turkey that did not vote for them as traitors, and those who have tried to maintain their power by splitting Turkey down the middle will suddenly contribute to Turkey's integration, peace, and democracy. I evaluate all of these as strategic preparations for the new constitution efforts.

News Source: 12punto