The real problems are swept under the rug!

How beautifully the public is being toyed with; one day, a major university is shut down with a single signature without any reason provided, and the next day, it is reopened with another signature. The question is: is this just about a single signature, or is it a strategy to dissipate the potential foam of the CHP?

A party convention is cancelled unlawfully and irregularly based on certain grounds, and almost every segment of society stomps on this issue as if forgetting all other problems; moreover, they discuss the matter not in terms of its deep connection to other major issues, the country's future, and imperialism, but solely through its superficial appearance and police-procedural dimension.

Are these the issues that deeply concern our society, or is this foam being released to ensure the survival of the AKP's and imperialism's dominance over society and the country!

While there are dozens of other lawful and unlawful issues that could be listed, the purpose of highlighting certain topics is clearly to sweep some major and real problems under the rug with the secondary issues created. If a university closure can be planned to dissipate the social foam of the maneuver carried out over the CHP, it means there are two fundamental problems here. First, there is no such thing as rights and law left in the country; every event or issue can be conducted according to the desires and wishes of a person or a circle, and can even be complicated to gain time. This issue has the potential to deeply shake all of our trust in an established state structure and public system. Trust in a state and public system and the fundamental bonds of belonging of citizens are based on a strong legal system and the power and security that the implementation of such a system provides to individuals. So much so that citizens should be able to defend themselves against the highest-level officials of the state when they are in the right. So much so that the highest-level official of the state should be able to bring themselves to approach citizens with respect and deference.

The second fundamental issue is that in democratic systems, the ruling party must be able to internalize being accountable and act appropriately to take questions with an open heart and answer them sincerely in their conversations with journalists. The question-and-answer relationship with journalists is not a place to lecture, but an environment of communication with society provided through the journalist. This is the fundamental issue that the politician must understand! The journalist-politician relationship is a democracy method that Habermas gifted to the scientific world as the "public sphere," which is exceptionally effective in public administration. Specifically, when a journalist directs questions to a politician regarding the issues of the period, this action is performed on behalf of the public, and during the process, a social complaint is reflected to the political figure, or a demand is made.

When the political figure approaches the subject sincerely, the political figure also gains information regarding the public's opinion, demand, or complaint about a subject. In short, the reason this type of question-answer system was developed in the West is precisely to expand the 'Public Sphere' as much as possible based on Habermas's theory. If this is the case, the attitude of some of our politicians toward journalists emerges as an area that can be examined as a subject of deep political pathology in the field of political science.

Another very important issue in the second category of problems is the matter of political decisions and actions being subject to review by an independent judiciary. A cadre that makes decisions on behalf of society, manages the existence of society, and determines the future of society cannot be at the helm of affairs without responsibility and accountability. First and foremost, the political cadre that takes power must digest and internalize that they are not "state elders" but "public servants." Even if it is not to take as an example the prime ministers in Western democracies who go to work by bicycle, the unimaginable extravagance of Middle Eastern political lords cannot be a reasonable lifestyle for a politician in the service of the people. Politics is not an area of service to oneself and one's economic status under the guise of serving the public!

The recent CHP issue has made one thing very clear. Namely, while the system and the law are clear and out in the open, how is it that there can be people who can stand by lawlessness or lack of system! If we look at the matter from another angle, how can a party that distributes employment opportunities or benefits in different ways remain in power indefinitely? We can also ask this question as follows: Why can a party or a leader in most Western democracies not remain in office for more than two terms? The reason for this is the provision of the politician's own benefit rather than the benefit of the public. Just as a student's success is reinforced by end-of-term exams, a political candidate's personal and functional cleanliness is ensured by specific mandatory periods that cannot be exceeded for any reason. When a politician is unable to change the mandatory end, they turn to functional and personal whitewashing of themselves and their cadre. This situation should be sought not only in exiting politics but also in entering it. Politics is not a profession, but a position of service. The nobility of this position should not be based on monetary returns such as salary and retirement, but on a reasonable level of cash and, to a large extent, knowledge and experience. The only way to achieve this is not through politics being open to every citizen within the framework of procedures, but through the necessity that those who enter parliament are interested, knowledgeable, and purposeful. This principle should be seen as functionality, not elitism.

Only when members of parliament can be representatives of the nation whose votes they received, rather than the party leader, do they become preoccupied with the nation's livelihood, health issues, and inadequate education issues, and turn toward producing solutions. Parliamentary decisions should not manifest as the decisions of party leaders, but as the decisions of the real people.

My dear friends who read these articles might think that I am flying a bit too high, that these are dreams in a bourgeois system, and that such situations are valid in systems where people's assemblies work effectively and efficiently. Well, that is exactly what I want to say; let us see the main reason for these petty squabbles, push them away with the back of our hands, and form our government in this way!