Müsavat Dervişoğlu's 'parliamentary system' statement! 'This system has blocked Turkey'

İYİ Party Chairman Müsavat Dervişoğlu spoke about current agenda items, primarily the planned regulation regarding the execution law, the terrorist organization PKK's dissolution decision, debates on establishing a commission, early elections, and constitutional amendments.

Regarding the planned changes to the Law on the Execution of Sentences, Dervişoğlu stated, "These demands and expectations are not new. This is a chain of demands and expectations that has manifested itself from yesterday to today and whose infrastructure is being attempted to be created by the DEM. For example, the concept of 'common homeland' is being discussed. 'Equal citizenship' and 'democratic republic.' Now, on what basis is the 'common homeland' concept being pursued? Is this homeland not already common? I mean, are we imposing that they live in different regions by giving different ethnic origins different areas? They live west of Ankara; more than 60 percent of our Kurdish brothers and sisters do. If you ask which is the largest Kurdish city, looking at its population, Istanbul comes out," he said.

Upon the question, "Will you support it when the execution regulation is submitted to Parliament?" Dervişoğlu replied, "I don't know what they will bring. If they bring a regulation aimed at releasing Abdullah Öcalan to the agenda through collusion, I personally would want this to be asked to the nation," he said.

"CAN ATALAY'S SITUATION AND ABDULLAH ÖCALAN'S SITUATION ARE NOT THE SAME"

To the question, "Would you support it if the execution regulation also covers Selahattin Demirtaş and Can Atalay?" Dervişoğlu responded, "Can Atalay's situation and Abdullah Öcalan's situation are not the same."

Dervişoğlu continued his words as follows:

"I am against all these issues being handled behind closed doors right now. I mean, if the legal experts of the Justice and Development Party and the Nationalist Movement Party are going to come together with the Palace bureaucracy to prepare something outside the knowledge of Parliament and impose it on the TBMM, I am fundamentally against this method.

It is being planned behind closed doors. I say that this is a stage of the Greater Middle East Project. Therefore, I say that the PKK is changing its office. Didn't those who govern this country say themselves that the PKK was already finished? They knew down to their shoe sizes. There were 89 people left. Legal regulations that concern the future of all of us are also being planned and imposed behind closed doors, just like this process. Then they say, 'We are like this, we have a majority in parliament.' Now they can take the DEM with them as well; they can bring any legal regulation they want to the agenda of the TBMM. Ultimately, this is the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. We point out its mistakes."

"WHO WILL THE COMMISSION LISTEN TO?"

Upon the question, "Will you provide members if a commission is established?" Dervişoğlu spoke as follows:

"I don't know what its content is. We are discussing a fantasy, and these discussions are covering up and overshadowing Turkey's real agendas. Turkey has very important problems. It lists 7 items, 'let a commission be established, let it consist of 100 people, let every party provide a member...' The number of deputies in Parliament is already 600... It is checked whether these are technically possible.

'Let it decide by a simple majority.' Who will this commission consist of, who will this commission listen to? I mean, this country was brought to the brink of dozens of disasters with the statements of secret witnesses, and it led to the adoption of dozens of controversial judicial decisions. Now you have established a commission... The DEM has been describing this as a 'truth commission' for a long time. I mean, if people whose reliability of information you are not sure of are brought to the TBMM and slander the Republic of Turkey, and if these are recorded in the minutes, if these are brought before Turkey in 20-25, 50 years—these are short terms in the life of a state—while some are already expressing opposition to Lausanne at the beginning of the process, they are talking about occupation and genocide..."

"THE ONE WHO SHOULD INVITE ME..."

To the question, "What do you suggest in this process?" Dervişoğlu gave the following answer:

"If I were in their place, I would ask, 'Why did you give up?' I would ask, 'Have you given up on being against the unitary state structure of Turkey?' Now, on what basis will I make an evaluation? Those who currently govern the Republic of Turkey are not giving me any information. They are sending the people who go to Imralı to act as messengers to the parties to give me information. The one who should come to me or invite me is the President. The ones who should visit are the Foreign Minister, the Interior Minister, the Justice Minister, and the Head of MIT. I am not receiving any information from the state. What idea will I form with the information given by the party that they have been calling an extension of the terrorist organization for a long time?"

"COMMON HOMELAND IS THE MAIN IDEA OF YUGOSLAVIA'S DIVISION"

Stating, "The President can visit, can invite for information, and can also visit me to account for this process," Dervişoğlu responded to the question "Then will you be involved in the process?" by saying, "This is not a decision I will make alone."

Dervişoğlu continued his words as follows:

"I ask you, where should we be involved in this process? The man says 'common homeland.' I also say, is the homeland not common? 'Equal citizenship.' Who can say that we are not equal before the law? However, the sense of equality has been damaged due to the practices of this government. Do you know what 'common homeland' is? Common homeland is the main idea of the division of Yugoslavia. If I were to say, 'Let the Kurds live in Urfa, Diyarbakır, Bitlis, you cannot come here,' then I would stand by the demand for a common homeland. But there are steps taken towards turning Turkey into a multi-flag federation, and these have been recorded. Doesn't this organization called the PKK have a roof structure called the KCK? Are there not separate organizations in Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran with the demand for a four-part canton? 'The PKK has dissolved itself.' The state says, 'All sub-elements and components of the KCK will also lay down their arms.' The YPG and PYD army in northern Syria is an army trained and equipped by the USA. Who are you making lay down their arms, who are you fooling?"

"THESE ARE NOT THE RIGHT METHODS"

Upon a question regarding the investigations into the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Dervişoğlu made the following assessment:

"I do not have an attitude that says 'if there is corruption here, let it not be investigated.' I am against the ways and methods of the investigation. While saying 'if there is corruption, let it be investigated,' one should not cast suspicion on some people as if it exists.

You have started such an investigation. The person you are talking about is a mayor. He or a mayor of another place. Trustees are being appointed based on the relationship of affiliation with terrorism; I even opposed the impropriety of that, I said it many times. You are conducting an investigation; in legal language, detention is a measure. It is not a method of punishment. You detain the man, your partner comes out and says, 'if you have evidence against the man, bring it and put it here, if there is any, punish him, if not, acquit him.' If they had no evidence when they detained Ekrem İmamoğlu within the scope of that investigation, and today they are going to the extent of collecting evidence, then Ekrem İmamoğlu was detained for nothing, and now evidence is being gathered under pressure. This creates the feeling that 'it is likely that the government will sign all kinds of lawlessness in the judicial field' due to its past records. We experienced and saw this during the Ergenekon and Balyoz processes. Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn is that you have nothing in your hand while detaining the man, and now you are collecting evidence. Secret witnesses, confessors, benefiting from effective remorse, etc. These are not the right methods. You investigate the person; doesn't the Ministry of Interior have an inspector? If a mayor commits corruption, who comes? An inspector comes. He comes, investigates, speeds up the process, says 'there is corruption here, there is injustice here,' and then sends it to the prosecutor's office, and the prosecutor's office takes action. It is not like that here. The feeling here is this; the citizen thinks, 'Ekrem İmamoğlu is Tayyip Erdoğan's political rival, and Tayyip Erdoğan is using these ways and methods to eliminate Ekrem İmamoğlu.'

I am asked, 'What will you do if there is corruption?' Is it my job? 'What will you do if there is terrorism?' Is it my job? Who will fight these defined by law? If a crime has been committed, the judiciary intervenes; if there is a threat, the civil administration intervenes. We are experiencing this pain because all the things I mentioned are referred to only as Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The law enforcement is Recep Bey, the army is Recep Bey, the police is Recep Bey. The court is Recep Bey. And I say that the system that brought Turkey to this state must be revised and overhauled before it causes more harm to this country and its citizens, and the path to transition to a parliamentary democratic system must be opened by immediately abandoning this system that is evolving into one-man rule."

"WOULD THESE BRUTAL PRACTICES BE IN QUESTION IF EARLY ELECTIONS HAD NOT BEEN ON THE AGENDA?"

Regarding the possibility of early elections, Dervişoğlu made the following assessment:

"The opposition does not have the number of seats to do that. Early elections pave the way for Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to be a candidate once again. The opposition wants elections. If the government does not get involved in this business, mentioning early elections only serves to whet Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's appetite. It gives Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the opportunity to determine the election calendar.

If you are asking whether Turkey needs an election, yes it does, and it is under the authority of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. There is no need to get an early election decision from Parliament; Tayyip Bey can take Turkey to elections directly, ex officio, if he is willing not to be a candidate. This is also a way. Maybe that can also be done. We are receiving rumors that there are some meetings and contacts for Turkey's transition to a parliamentary democratic system or a semi-presidential system. These can also be done. But I oppose these being done by hiding them from the public, from a single center, in order to create the conditions for the next election.

If this early election had not been on the agenda, if this appetite had not been whetted in this way, if the provision of regulations that would work on the process regarding the system stitch by stitch had been sought, these brutal practices might not have been in question today."

"KEEPING ONE MAN IN PLACE BOTH GETS THE COUNTRY INTO TROUBLE..."

Regarding the constitutional amendment debates and the resignation of deputies in this context, Dervişoğlu noted the following:

"You don't need to take a deputy from another party. I mean, there is no need to make a deputy transfer. Political parties cannot already take a group decision in constitutional amendments. They can also take a man from within a party, one step after this. Well, why are we doing this? To keep one man in his place. Keeping one man in his place both gets this country into trouble, damages the morality of this country, and poisons the politics of this country. Isn't it the system that should be questioned?"

News Source: 12punto