Striking reminder from Müsavat Dervişoğlu: Abdullah Öcalan had also pointed to Kurtulmuş for 'New Constitution' talks

Müsavat Dervişoğlu participated in a live broadcast on Habertürk and made noteworthy statements.

Dervişoğlu's statements are as follows:

Let's see it first; if determination is shown, we will discuss the issue in our party's authorized bodies. I would also very much desire it. Every Turkish citizen can share such a wish. I do not think such a thing will happen. I am looking at the issue more realistically. I cannot understand why this process is being so closely linked to normalization. It is known to everyone that there are risks in the geography where Turkey is located, and these risks are not new.

Our geography has both advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages must be turned into advantages with state wisdom. However, some steps were taken incorrectly, and it has brought about some problems that threaten Turkey's future. The developments in Iraq, northern Syria, and with Iran are known. For a long time, Israel has been carrying out attacks on the oppressed Palestinian people with a terrorist morality that does not befit a state.

Turkey is naturally affected by this. The geopolitics of this geography naturally dictates that Turkey be managed correctly from yesterday to today. In this sense, if you experience weakness, you may have to endure the consequences in the long and medium term. Turkey must stand out with the quality of being a state that implements a correct foreign policy. Therefore, I do not find the thesis of bringing a normalization or softening process to the agenda very correct, by associating all developments with events happening outside of us, as if Turkey is facing a major threat within itself.

THE ISSUE OF ISRAEL ATTACKING TURKEY

Someone put an agenda item forward, and it has not yet been answered by the interlocutors. A sincerity test can be conducted by looking at that answer. When viewed from the outside, it is a necessity for Turkey to appear as one and together; Turkey does not have such a weakness. There is no meaning in creating such a sentiment. The President has made statements that Israel, with a population of 9 million and a surface area as large as Lake Van when you look at the map, will attack Turkey. Those statements are also worth noting. We have a stance that developments outside should not be made into material for domestic politics. I am saying it clearly and plainly: Israel cannot be Turkey's rival and can never, ever attack Turkey.

I am not saying this based on surface area and population. I am saying it by looking at Turkey's strategic position, its power in NATO, and its military strength. America might be behind it. If there is weakness here, the appetites of imperialist powers may be whetted. This is not the first time the Turkish nation has experienced this situation. How this situation was overcome has found its place on the golden pages of history. I do not believe that a state like Israel could set its sights on Turkey. I consider the bringing of such a possibility to the public agenda, as if it were based on some historical data stemming from the 'Arz-ı Mevud' (Promised Land) that has remained in the back of minds, as material to be used in domestic politics.

The 'Arz-ı Mevud', which international Zionism dreams of dominating the valley between the Nile and the Euphrates, is one of my areas of knowledge; I know it. I saw the last tweet posted by the Israeli Foreign Minister. I wholeheartedly agree with the answer given by Mr. Ömer Çelik; I would sign my name under it.

SECOND OPENING AGENDA

Perhaps such a debate is desired. It is known to everyone who opened this debate in the public eye. In terms of pointing out such a danger and negative approach, I pointed out the drawbacks of this issue in my group speech. Looking at the statements of Mr. Uçum and Mr. Efgan Ala, I approached the sentences stating that such a thing would not be put on stage again with satisfaction.

There is a confession there, a confession that the mistake made in the past will not be repeated. Neither the opposition parties are the side that opened this debate. There is talk of constitutional amendment in Turkey. Some elements are wanted to be brought to the center of Turkey. It is being evaluated as if warm messages are being given to some segments within the concept of normalization. This confuses the public's mind and wounds their conscience. All these debates stem from constitutional amendments. What is sought is the required number of votes in Parliament.

If we are to define the threat Turkey is facing, the government is late in doing so. The government has a sickness: it expects appreciation and praise while solving what it created itself. We know who the source of the mistakes made here is. There is talk about constitutional amendment in Turkey. Some segments are talking about a new constitution. For this to move from thought to action, some steps need to be taken. These steps have not gone untaken. This is a situation stemming from an outstretched hand. There is talk of a hand extended to the DEM Party. Shaking hands is one thing, extending a hand is another. Representatives of all political parties in the TBMM (Grand National Assembly of Turkey) shake hands with each other; this is an attitude that befits the dignity of the TBMM.

"NOT BAHÇELİ'S HAND, BUT TAYYİP ERDOĞAN'S"

Mr. Devlet Bahçeli stated that he was influenced by the President's speech and therefore, taking it upon himself as a duty, extended a hand to the DEM Party as a component of the People's Alliance. When it is thought that this is not Mr. Bahçeli's hand but Tayyip Erdoğan's hand by proxy, it is quite natural that the subject leads to constitutional amendment. It is the government's duty to deny this.

NEW CONSTITUTION TALKS

We will look at the constitutional amendment from two sides. Will there be a constitutional amendment, or will a new constitution be made? The expressions of the people assigned by the government carry signs that Turkey needs a new constitution and that it should not be referred to as a coup constitution. We understand this from Mr. Numan Kurtulmuş's statement. Every positive or negative job needs a lightning rod. Mr. Kurtulmuş was chosen as the lightning rod. Mr. Kurtulmuş began to assume a leading role for himself.

This constitution was amended with 12 packages between 1987 and 2017. 184 articles were amended, 58 articles were never touched, and 23 articles were repealed or abolished. I have the constitutional amendment that the Justice and Development Party made in 12 packages in my hand. It creates a volume far above the constitution. This constitution is actually the constitution made by the AK Party. This constitution also covers today's regime change. It also shows the transition from a parliamentary democratic system to the Presidential Government System. Our constitution is defined in legal language as a 'rigid constitution'; or a constitution that is difficult to amend.

The unamendable articles of the constitution contain the definition of the regime. I say this regarding the Speaker of the Parliament, who spoke about Article 3 of the constitution, and who is the lightning rod for this business, the person who will shoulder the reactions to be directed at the constitutional amendment. This is not Mr. Kurtulmuş's first offense. I have a text in my hand that points to what kind of constitution the HAS Party wanted. Wherever Numan Kurtulmuş wrote it with whom, he speaks of the 1921 Constitution with enthusiasm and insistence. He says that the 1921 Constitution was abolished by a coup. In other words, he accuses Mustafa Kemal Atatürk of being a coup plotter.

REACTION TO NUMAN KURTULMUŞ

Numan Kurtulmuş talks about autonomy here. He points to the negativities between central administration and local administration. Mr. Numan Kurtulmuş is vomiting his subconscious. The 34-page text, which was shared with the public at the time by Mr. Numan Kurtulmuş and written in a somewhat socialistic language in places, says that the official ideology should be removed from the constitution. There is not a single word 'Turk' or 'Atatürk' in this 34-page text. Now Kurtulmuş is sitting in the office of the Speaker of the TBMM. In my opinion, he is a former speaker; I wish for a new constitutional study to be managed under his presidency to be followed personally by the government and the President, and for Mr. Kurtulmuş to resign from the office he holds due to these views, or if he does not, for his dismissal to be ensured.

They are not going to say today that we will touch the first 4 articles. But I am pointing to what comes out of the subconscious. I am looking at the new constitution issue from other areas as well. What need will this constitution meet? What powers can they not use with this constitution? Why are they bringing the constitutional debate to the public agenda and having discussions that could serve to cover up Turkey's burning problems?

"ABDULLAH ÖCALAN HAD POINTED TO KURTULMUŞ"

I have issued warnings regarding the fact that they should not be dragged into a new adventure regarding the solution process. I evaluate the statements made from that perspective. There are some issues in the Imralı minutes that need to be focused on.

As early as 2013, Abdullah Öcalan pointed out that Numan Kurtulmuş should take a role in the constitutional convention. I believe that constitutional debates should be handled from the right place and should be debates that need to be implemented with a correct start.

I think there is a process granted to Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to rule this country for life. They want to make politics, citizens, and leaders discuss certain issues without them doing anything, and to create a field of political nourishment from this; I look at this as theater. I state that I and my party will not take part in this play.

When we met with Numan Kurtulmuş, I said this: I told him that he sits in an impartial office and that I would consider his expressions as mere wishes. I do not think he will come and talk about the constitution with me after all these words. I do not know if he has given up on this idea. I state that he vomited his subconscious with the statement he made. I say that the text prepared by the HAS Party contains some expressions against the unitary state structure and citizenship definition of the Republic of Turkey. Furthermore, I see that a federative structure is mentioned here and that the definition of citizenship is not handled correctly.