The legal regulations that shape the election systems and political parties are indispensable for the democratic system. You can combine this as the quest triggered by a better management ideal.
On the other hand, with a realist perspective, you can say that it is a scene from the throne games, just like democracy itself.
Everybody knows how to prevent the deputy transfers that are being talked about nowadays. What needs to be said before proceeding to a judgment about the correctness or the wrongness of this is that such arrangements are carried out with fancy rhetoric such as “establishing democracy, justice”, but in fact “to strengthen the power of the strong by the strong”.
To expect a qualification that will benefit opposition even from an arrangement made by the government would be purity in its simplest terms. What, then, will the government bring up an arrangement in which it will receive less votes or even defeat it, and will accept it!
Or a more correct question: What kind of understanding of power does such a move accept?
Nationalists, social democrats, Marxist Leninist etc. are marginal left or conservative….
By saying that, I do not mean that opposition parties are not hopeful of the law proposal and therefore do not put it on the agenda.
The opposition will continue to tell the truth, of course. It will try to explain to the voters the benefits of legal regulations to the country. It will offer a broad perspective from the financing of the parties to the elections for the delegates.
However, I am of the opinion that while doing this, it should not be a democratism. I would especially like to state that I do not find such explanations and discourses very sincere.
Because the truth of the matter is that when he took power, he was not limited to the current ruling party. Our political culture clearly shows that there is not much difference between right and left and right.
As the CHP is removing the political ban of President Erdogan, which he wants to remove from the government by forming an opposition front today, Erbakan Hodja's ignoring the political ban is still in our memories as another version of the law amendment to address.
However, since this legal arrangement was already a political trial, it could be extended to the general to include Erbakan Hodja at that time.
In fact, it is not understandable that the same political circles still display hostile attitudes to the members of the sect-community, which is one of the most common social reality, one way or another, while looking at all heresy from right, law, justice and polyphony.
There is so much evidence to say, "You were a democrat," in the middle.
In other words, democracy rhetoric may of course happen, but I say it should be carried out with a little more restraint, because the political scorecards are in the middle.
Yes, there is a need for a legal arrangement in our country. The law of political parties should change, which is true. In fact, it is very important that the opposition come together and establish a common will.
However, if he does this “the most innocent among us”, only then will it be believable and realistic.
Otherwise, the word “to the liver where the cat cannot reach…” will continue to repeat.
Finally, it will be useful to touch upon the "common will" move put forward by the Felicity Party in the 2007 elections, in which the same circles stopped the 367 crisis.