Is there an 'anger management' problem?

Last week, there was a video that left its mark on the social media agenda in particular.

When Özgür Özel was walking on Fethiye Street in the İzmit district of Kocaeli, a citizen tugged at his arm, and he turned around in a fit of rage and reacted by saying, "Damn it."

As reflected in the footage captured by a mobile phone, his eyes, wide as saucers, looked as if they were about to spit fire.

At first glance, this might seem like an ordinary argument lasting a few seconds.

However, the issue is not that simple.

Because I have spent enough time in this profession to know that the true character of politicians does not emerge in their pre-prepared speeches, in events that have perhaps been rehearsed dozens of times, or in television programs where they answer softball questions.

Whoever they are, they can control themselves when they get behind the microphone and read the texts prepared by their advisors!  

The real issue is what they do in an unexpected moment.

For example, when someone touches your arm...

When they test your patience...

When you feel disturbed...

That is the moment when the reaction given by a politician is extremely important.

Let us refresh our memories a little.

Before the 1991 elections, a citizen had tried to snatch the fedora hat that had become a symbol of Demirel at a rally site. Demirel did not let go of the hat, and by tugging at it, he rescued it from that citizen's hand.

After watching the footage that was reflected on the TRT camera, he let out that famous laugh of his and, with his unique style, said:

"Therefore, I won't let the hat be snatched!"

He neither insulted anyone nor got into a verbal altercation with the citizen.

Instead of turning the incident into anger, he turned it into a phrase that settled into the humorous and political memory within a few seconds.

Özgür Özel's reaction in İzmit should be discussed precisely for this reason.

Of course, it is not right for a citizen to tug at a politician's arm. No one has the right to interfere with another person's physical space.

But what a politician should do should not be to unleash their own anger in the face of every wrong behavior by a citizen.

Especially not a politician who serves as the chairman of the main opposition party.

Let us take a look at the book on the subject.

Those who have read a little bit of psychology or social psychology also know this. Anger is often not as simple an emotion as we think. A person does not get angry just because they are mad. Behind anger, there are often other emotions.

Anxiety.

Fear.

Hurt.

The anxiety of losing control.

Feeling threatened...

This is the mechanism frequently encountered in the emergence of anger in psychology. A person first thinks they are facing a threat. This threat may be real, it may be exaggerated, or it may stem solely from the meaning the person carries in their mind.

Then the defense begins.

Defense is sometimes silence.

Sometimes it is withdrawing.

Sometimes it is anger.

Because anger gives a person a sense of power for a very short time.

If you are afraid and you shout, you can cover up your fear.

If you feel powerless, you can try to establish superiority by becoming harsh.

If you think you are losing control, you can believe that you have regained control by silencing the person in front of you.

That is why anger is often not real power.

Sometimes it is a mask for powerlessness.

The fact that people look very powerful from the outside does not change this reality. In fact, in some people, on the contrary, the more fragile the self-confidence, the harsher the reaction to criticism can be.

Because a person with solid self-confidence does not see every objection as a personal attack.

They can distinguish the difference between "criticizing me" and "humiliating me."

A person with fragile self-confidence can perceive even the smallest objection as an attack on their own value.

There, the chain starts working rapidly:

Feeling of being belittled, hurt, defense, anger...

Another chain is this:

Anxiety, perception of threat, fear of loss of control, anger...

And this is exactly what is dangerous in terms of politics. Because politics constantly puts a person into these kinds of situations.

A politician is criticized, booed, protested, and sometimes subjected to harassment or insults. Sometimes they face direct provocation.

If a politician surrenders to anger every time they perceive a threat, what begins to manage them is not their mind, but their reflexes.

It would not be right to make a medical or psychological diagnosis about Özgür Özel based on this. To say that a person "definitely has an anger management disorder" requires an expert evaluation.

But it is possible to discuss the behaviors that the public sees.

It is a serious issue in political terms for a political leader to frequently become harsh, react suddenly, and give the appearance of having difficulty controlling their anger in the face of people who disturb them.

Because anger is contagious.

If the leader shouts, the organization shouts; if the leader normalizes insults, the supporters begin to see insults as normal; if the leader perceives every criticism as an attack, the language of politics also becomes increasingly aggressive.

Turkey is already a country with high levels of anger.

Anger in traffic.

Anger on social media.

Anger on the street.

And in politics, there is more of it than all of them.

In such an environment, the duty of a politician should not be to raise social tension even further.

One of the most important characteristics of a leader is not that they do not get angry.

This is impossible.

Everyone gets angry.

The real issue is what you do when you get angry.

For this reason, the reaction Özgür Özel gave to that citizen should not be seen as a detail to be underestimated. Those who aspire to govern the country must first be able to manage their own anger.

Can someone who cannot control their own emotions be expected to guide the emotions of millions in a healthy way? Let us put a period to our article by saying that this is the issue that needs to be discussed.