Maybe no one is fooling anyone!

Years ago, in an article for Duvar and later in Diken, I used the phrase , "Silence doesn't always come from acknowledgement, but sometimes from disgust," to address those who criticized the public's silence. It's a feeling I've experienced frequently. Indeed, things can happen that make a person choose silence out of embarrassment or the magnitude of their discomfort, and they have no choice but to do so.

The words "deception" and "being deceived" have been in circulation for a long time. Politicians, writers, and even ordinary citizens—as voters—use this verb frequently. There are probably many reasons, but I believe two of them are apoliticism and a lack of self-criticism.

Being apolitical isn't surprising for a self-assured citizenry. Discussing current affairs day and night in a country doesn't mean that the majority of its citizens are politically active. On the contrary, it demonstrates that they are not political enough to tirelessly chatter about current affairs. I'm certainly not referring to those whose job it is to discuss political developments.

Being political or not, like many other phenomena, is related to the lathe . This lathe doesn't have to be the lathe of national education; an education system can create an "educated and apolitical" majority.

Is it more political, a university professor who asks, "What problem do the Kurds have in Turkey?" or a villager who says, "A country cannot be governed without turbunan turnips" ?

Or who has a clearer political consciousness: someone who lives happily in houses built by clearing forests, or an old peasant woman who hugs trees in her village so that they won't be cut down?

What I'm saying is, being politically apolitical requires a consciousness, concern, experience, and intuition that are the product of circumstances. I'm not one of those who disdain diplomas ; I believe they are not, as is often assumed, sufficient for healthy politicization.

When the apolitical attitude is combined with the 'lack of self-criticism' , the number of people who are deceived inevitably increases.

Let's consider the figures who have established themselves alongside the ruling party in recent years: broadcasters, soldiers, politicians, academics, bar association presidents, and so on. What was their position in the opposition camp? Why were they considered respectable? Because they were nationalists? Because they were Kemalists? What else? So, aren't the ruling party nationalists? What's the problem?

Was it healthy not to wonder about or attach importance to the other qualities possessed by those who claimed to be Kemalists and earned their living in this position for years? Who is responsible for the fact that those once extolled to the skies later become deeply disappointed: the sheikh or the disciple?

Now, a female CHP politician and mayor is making headlines, along with several other mayors, about to join the ruling party. The outcry is, of course, justified. Gaining votes from opposition voters and then joining the ruling party is simply not acceptable. That woman chose this path, and she will live the rest of her life as one who chose it.

Ultimately, each of us makes various choices, and it's the sum total of those choices that define us. CHP members offer various reasons, and they may all be valid; but as a voter, I'm interested in where my vote goes, not the reasons for the journey.

According to newspaper reports, the family company's stock market value has been breaking records for the past two days. How wonderful! Those aligned with the government are no less respected than other capitalists. Indeed, everyone is chasing their own livelihoods, and the "lofty stock market" is one of the most crucial institutions in this system. For example, shouldn't we question the corporate system and the decisive role of the stock market in our lives? Isn't this the truly political approach?

The female politician, now part of the ruling bloc, also served two terms as a CHP MP. Like other MPs, who nominated her? A citizen? What political background led her to become her city's parliamentary candidate and be elected?

Members of Parliament are representatives of the "nation," in other words, of our whole being. What influence and participation do ordinary citizens have in these elections? Who nominated mayoral candidates, the public? How should we describe the shock felt by millions of citizens, who have virtually no role in determining local or central officials, when someone they don't even know defects?

What is a "political stance" ? Advocating for and implementing participation in governance at every level, or chatting day and night when someone we don't know annoys us with their stance? Some people will always dismiss these words as "empty talk," which is normal. On the other hand, the question "Why are we experiencing what we're experiencing?" shouldn't be such an empty question.

The politician who is being debated today and who has disappointed the opposition had written his name and signature on a bomb a few years ago. Some people were proud of him.

Now he's switched parties. Because he considers signing a bomb a feat. No one's fooling anyone; everything usually happens right before everyone's eyes.

And finally, I believe that these developments are and will be extremely beneficial for the CHP.

Article suggestions: Mine Söğüt's article titled 'Citizens' Identity Information' .

Gökçer Tahincioğlu's article on 'Commission' .