Turkey is facing a real political and economic crisis.
At this point, there is no need to explain at length the point that the government has brought the country with its actions. The current picture that has emerged should be seen as the results of the wrong policies implemented for 20 years.
And when the metal and mental fatigue of 20 years is added, the gravity of the painting becomes even more evident.
For the opposition, the situation is more interesting. Despite the fact that the government is so worn out, we are faced with the serious problem that no opposition party with a certain percentage of votes can stand up to the electorate in a strong way.
For this reason, it is rightly stated that it is necessary to concentrate on "the problem of opposition, not power" in Turkey.
If the current ruling party turns over the seat today, the answers to the questions of how to overcome the chronic or urgent problems in the economy, industry, trade and education still seem to be left unclear for the opposition.
Take a look, in an environment where the economic crisis makes itself felt, the promise of the main opposition party to the voters is announced with interesting populism as "Special Consumption Tax discount for young people who will buy a car for the first time".
I don't mean to be condescending, but shouldn't there be answers on the agenda of the opposition parties, which are candidates for power, on how to save Turkey, which is deeply connected to the global system by the AK Party, from this grip?
What would be the meaning of this change if the interest-based financial system will preserve its existence even though the government has changed in Turkey, if the materialist policies in education will be continued, if politics will continue the Machiavellian line?
It is necessary to remind those who say, "We look at the discourse, there are always good wishes in the discourse of the opposition," and the speeches on human rights, peace-justice that the AK Party gave in 2002.
The ritual is a job, no words are needed! We know that those who come to power by "will," maintain their power "by pretending".
In the end, the fact that for example CHP or Good Party did not propose a system is obvious, but following the direction of tenders and recruitment in Istanbul and Ankara municipalities for two and a half years will be sufficient to understand the issue.
Therefore, it is necessary to focus on actions, not rhetoric. As such, the expectation for a more general evaluation increases.
It should be clearly stated that; In order for Turkey to get rid of the political and economic crisis it is in, there is a need for a strong opposition beyond the current understanding of opposition.
As if to prove that it is an intellectual movement beyond being a party, National Vision (Milli Görüş) movement has developed theories for the determination and solution of existing problems, and put them into practice whenever it finds practice.
We are talking about a movement that proposes a presidential system for the first time in Turkey, develops solutions such as the Pool System with the principle of Fair Economic Order, develops a development perspective with Heavy Industry moves, goes beyond the nation-state constructs by communicating intensely with Islamic countries and peoples, and does all these while in opposition. .
Such an opposition created a great opportunity for all parties in Turkey. We are talking about an understanding of opposition that puts forward its own project on the one hand, but aligns “others” in power or opposition on the other.
Today, it is clear that Turkey needs such an opposition more than ever.
The fact that there are those who watch the Erdoğan-Karamollaoğlu meeting, which took place in the past days and left its mark on the agenda, with interest as well as with concern, is directly related to this.
Those who try to turn the meeting into an armchair crisis reveal that they are actually worried about the emergence of the real opposition understanding.
You may remember that in the process of February 28, in order to explain the struggle of our teacher Erbakan, someone called it a "a man of defense". In fact, this ascription was generally accepted.
But when I heard our Erbakan Hodja objecting when he was told himself, "What is the man of defense? We were never on the defensive side, we were always on the offensive," I realized "from where we should look at the issue".
Now, when I look at it, the circles that regarded our Hodja as "a man of defense" that day are still trying to push National Vision into the psychology of defense.
They are trying to make people think that Islam is harmed because of the AK Party, so a defense should be made as if this is not actually Islam.
However, they know very well that if this is done, the political ground of National Vision will be blurred and, moreover, it will prepare the ground for the secular, nationalist political perception to settle.
So what's their problem?
Because “the thief is most afraid of the homeowner!”