The issue of betrayal

Nazım Hikmet brings tremendous clarity to the concept of betrayal with his poem 'The Traitor to the Homeland' and states that standing with traitors also means betrayal. Those who accuse him of treason do not want to face themselves, for they would not be pleased with the truth they would see in the mirror.

The issue of betrayal should be approached from this perspective: by confronting, by revealing the truth, and by recalling the affiliations, belongings, and loyalties one holds. What is a person betraying, where does their malice begin, and whom are they harming? It is not very meaningful to speak in the name of betrayal without exploring the answers to these questions.

We encounter betrayal across a wide spectrum, from interpersonal relationships to values, beliefs, and ideologies. The world is a place where there are bad people as well as good ones. There is treachery as well as integrity, and evil as well as goodness. Moreover, in the age we live in, this situation is unfortunately evolving in favor of evil. This is because the system the world is currently in produces a consciousness that favors evils. It rewards power, sycophancy, and wealth, not honesty, morality, or sharing. It prioritizes itself, its tribe, or its community, not society.

In such a world, from the moment a person begins to recognize life, they encounter the reality of betrayal and the allure of this reality. This is a harsh but painful aspect of the matter. Therefore, one should not think of betrayal independently of social conditions. On the other hand, the subject of affiliation, which we mentioned at the beginning of the article, also needs to be unpacked.

Let us begin, then.

Affiliation generally refers to being part of a set of relationships and being committed to it. This can be a belief, a thought, an ideology, or even a family. We have an acceptance regarding the place we claim to belong to: we say that we embrace the claims, approvals, or objections, and values there; we define ourselves through that identity and participate in life from there. It is precisely at this point that betrayal appears to us in two different forms.

First, a person abandons the values they have embraced, moves in the opposite direction, and engages in aggressive behavior from the opposing side toward the area they previously belonged to. However, the affiliation that the person claims to carry may not reflect reality. It is possible for a person to include themselves in a group precisely to commit treason. When their task is finished, they leave that place and reveal their betrayal. It is easy to talk about betrayal in such a field; the perpetrator is visible, and their actions are clear. But betrayal does not always reveal itself so easily. Then we can move on to the second type of betrayal.

Here, the person says they have not abandoned their claims: for example, they are Muslim, Alevi, Socialist, or Kemalist, but the life they lead corresponds to another reality, a separate world. They are Muslim, but they use this for their personal interests, future plans, and career calculations. When the time comes, the prayer they recite, the photograph they appear in, or the historical figures they defend function as a step in their career process. Mosque or Cemevi, it makes no difference; for the person who is in betrayal, that place is not a sanctuary, but a position or an arsenal where they will receive the support of the world they are involved in. The reason for being there is to make their power visible, to bring their supporters together, and to consolidate the mass support they will have behind them. Otherwise, there is no sincerely felt affiliation, no deep heartfelt bond. The relationship they establish with faith is a kind of merchant relationship. They look at life through the balance of trade. They focus on the values they will sell. At such a time, they put their religion, their faith, and the values they believe in up for sale. Depending on the promises offered, the values to be sold are also put on display. The moment trade begins, all channels of betrayal are opened.

A similar situation can be cited for individuals, parties, or institutions that claim to hold socialist thought. For a structure that ignores all the principles of socialism such as sharing, equality, and solidarity, gets lost in bourgeois relationships, and furthermore acts with a capitalist spirit and becomes an element of intra-system politics, what socialist claim can we speak of? If actions are carried out according to a capitalist mentality, is there any need to discuss the name of the perpetrator? For example, can someone who falls into the wake of the bourgeoisie under the name of journalism remain a socialist? Similarly, how can someone who claims to own socialism only by name while running their party or institution like a capitalist company, and acting like a boss rather than a comrade, hold onto their claim with any commitment? We can multiply the questions, but the point we have reached is clear: wherever there is exploitation, rent-seeking, and calculations of interest, there will be no shortage of traitors.

As we conclude our article here, let us emphasize that the more widespread betrayal is in a society, the more that society is doomed to lose human values, its future, and a virtuous life. It is the citizens who make up the homeland; because virtue, morality, identity, and values flourish there, boundaries are drawn there, and 'destiny' reveals itself there.