The İmamoğlu debate in the AKP does not subside: After Oktay Saral, Mehmet Metiner also targets Hüseyin Çelik

The conviction of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu has sparked debates within the AKP. Hüseyin Çelik, one of the party's founders, criticized the trial process of İmamoğlu, stating, "I do not find the method of trial to be correct." The first reaction to this statement came from the Palace.

Oktay Saral, Chief Advisor to AKP Chairman and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, gave a harsh response to Çelik's words, stating, "It is political immorality for some names who have taken part in the ranks of the AK Party in the past to oppose the government. One cannot speak of the sincerity of those who switch to the opposing camp once they lose their seats."

CRITICISMS FROM METİNER REGARDING THE PARTY

Former deputy Mehmet Metiner also joined the İmamoğlu debate within the AKP. In a post on his social media account, Metiner drew attention to two different types of people in the party. He stated that the first group consists of individuals who held important positions in the party in the past but expressed their dissatisfaction after losing their offices. He said these individuals claim that the AKP has deviated from its founding principles and that Erdoğan has become a one-man ruler.

Metiner defined the second group as individuals who had fought against Erdoğan and his values in the past but now want to benefit from the party's power. He stated that these individuals try to gain prestige by appearing close to Erdoğan.

Stating that both groups have led to a harmful process within the party, Metiner said, "It is time to review everything from scratch." He emphasized that the party needs to determine a new policy regarding these two groups.

The full text of Metiner's statement is as follows:

"TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE IN THE AK PARTY

First Group:

This group, which includes some founding names, has reached every position they needed to reach. For example, they have been President, minister, speaker of parliament, deputy chairman, etc. At that time, they owned and defended the Leader and the party more than anyone else. They did not even tolerate the slightest criticism of the AK Party. Their satisfaction was at its peak. Then, when their positions were gone, they did not refrain from expressing their dissatisfaction first subtly, and then openly. According to this group, the 'Age of Bliss' (Asr-ı saadet) of the AK Party was only the years when they themselves were in office. Afterwards, the AK Party deviated from its founding principles and Erdoğan became a one-man ruler.

Personally, I do not find those who speak differently when they have power and differently when that power is gone—that is, those who determine their position according to their personal power, positions, and/or the prestige they receive or lose—to be principled, nor do I find them reliable, especially those who do this while appearing to be on the side of the truth.

Second Group:

The fawning of some who have never adopted the Leader and the values he represents at any stage of their lives, and who have even fought relentless battles against the Leader and his values in other parties, in order to benefit from the power of the Leader and his party. Their fawning over the Leader to gain power and prestige by breaking away from their own parties. Appearing wherever the Leader is.

The characteristic feature of these types is this: They act more 'Erdoğanist' than Erdoğan. They try to push aside the people who have dedicated their lives to the cause—that is, the true owners of the house—using the situational prestige they have gained through the Leader.

I consider it wrong to even put the terms 'principle' and 'virtue' side by side with these types of politicians.

What is sad is that these types of people are held in high esteem periodically. This turns into a harmful process that leads to irreparable resentment, bitterness, and even breakaways.

I WISH;

If those in the first group had not acted out of personal interest and had been more supportive than anyone else with a role of seniority.

If they had stood tall behind the Leader and the party.

If they had been able to make their warnings and criticisms, if any, by owning the Leader and the party, without using the mouths of others and without serving their own political ambitions.

Undoubtedly, this would have been a very useful and functional force.

If those belonging to the second group did not fail to show respect to those who have dedicated their lives to the cause where they came from, and did not resort to wrong paths such as pushing them aside or suppressing them. If they showed the minimum respect that should be shown to the true owners of the house and did not resort to all kinds of intrigues to push them back in order to come to the fore. If they did not exaggerate their roles and power and never resorted to wrong paths that would draw reaction, such as trying to redesign the party they came to. Then they would see that they are more embraced and respected.

And I wish that names belonging to this group were not placed above those who have dedicated their lives to the cause. Their exclusionary attitudes should never be allowed.

When the two come together, the party is damaged, let it be known!

It is time to review everything from scratch, I remind you.

Both those belonging to the first group and those in the second group should review their positions again.

It also seems essential for the Leader and our AK Party headquarters to determine a new policy regarding both groups.

Take it from me."

News Source: 12punto

Related News

Erdoğan's chief advisor slams Hüseyin Çelik! 'Shamelessness and political immorality'