While the election campaignes should be conducive to the understanding of different groups by listening to each other, such a style is being exhibited that listening of different sections to each other is on another side, enemy fronts begin to form. Because the allegations and accusations that are not originally primed are so often repeated that the citizen can believe in what the accusers say. If he believes, an approach based on to reject each other emerges. For example, a citizen supporting a party wants to believe that he is right in supporting that party. As a result, a situation that accepting what their general chairman say is correct emerges. However, the owners of this understanding do not live in glass vials and come across people from different sectors. Whether they want it or not, the political issues come into the question and they accuse what the spokespersons of the party which they hold say to the opponent party as if they are holy texts. When the answer to the incoming response is not true to what he has said, he is silent.
For instance, the waiter of a restaurant which I have been visiting from time to time for a long time would not go into much political discussions with customers. There were certain people that they were hang out with each other. But these debates gradually began to turn from jokes to mutual accusations. Obviously, the spokespersons of the AKP-MHP alliance have increasingly managed to ossify a segment of their base by increasing the amount of accusations against the parties that are outside of them. Especially they exhibit such a style that “they are no different from each other, you must vote for us for the survival of the country” may mean that you are obliged to give us by putting the parties in the same container, paint them in the same color without any discrimination.
We can say that the parties outside the AKP-MHP alliance are the traitor, the terrorist collaborator according to them and as a result the votes given to them will endanger the future of the country. To accept such a discourse and approach is unethical to me.
Because if everyone has to walk with the AKP-MHP alliance, there is no need for the elections. This suggests a totalitarian approach rather than democracy. Briefly, polarizing discourses that can break the chest race from a democratic ground raise concerns in the general public. In the meantime, as I mentioned above, maybe the speeches in the base of their party in a narrow section of the ossification of people to talk each other makes it difficult to discuss.
But, it is not even necessary to say that these parties and their candidates have the same rights in the face of the law if they have been eligible for election and have been approved by official bodies such as the Supreme Electoral Council of the state. If there is a violation of the Constitution and the law, the competent authorities of the state may carry out the necessary examination and take them to the judiciary. But as the judiciary does not have such a decision, the parties that can enter the elections are declared, even the ballots are designed, personally it would not be wrong to qualify the behaviors of the AKP-MHP alliance spokespersons as an effort to shift the society from other parties and to refrain from the eyes of the electorate because of the distance from the democratic maturity like accusing the parties out of them as a gang, make them seen as if they receive orders from the Qandil, with indirect accusations such as “everyone knows who is walking with who” which is the lightest one.
In summary, like the expression of the IYI (GOOD) Party General Chairwoman Meral Akşener such an air is making blowed that “as if we are going to war, not elections”.