The Erzurum Provocation

A very unexpected act of protest was directed at Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal in Erzurum three days ago. Two people in the crowd -- yes only two - unfurled banners reading "Baykal, you are in the hometown of Fetullah Gülen, Go away!" "Baykal we will bury you in the ballot box!" and "All of us are the children of Fetullah Gülen." And then they threw eggs at him.

We had written that the number of provocations would increase as election day approached, but we honestly wouldn't have expected Mr. Gülen's name to be made a part of such actions. Those who love Gülen spell his name as "Fethullah," not as "Fetullah" with the "h" missing. Those who know the politeness and courtesy of Mr. Gülen also know that it is impossible for his admirers to say "go away" to the leader of a party, because those who meet Mr. Gülen for the first time admire and are struck by his courtesy. In particular, the provocation speaks for itself as these rude people used the word "children," which Mr. Gülen has never used for any of his students.

Mr. Gülen has been prioritizing education for years. There are millions of people today who have grown up with his principles of love, tolerance and respect toward everyone. Not a single militant has emerged from among them so far. None of them has ever been a part of any illegal protest. That's why those two people cannot possibly be admirers of Mr. Gülen. So, who are they? I can only guess.

When we went to Erzurum two years ago for the Abant meeting, they had told us that we would be protested at the airport and have eggs thrown at us. Then we inspected the event. The most reliable people in Erzurum told us who was behind the provocation. The leading figures in this Anatolian city prevented the provokers from staging that ugliness.

It was obvious that this event, too, was a provocation: The columnists who love to criticize Mr. Gülen and his admirers at every opportunity readily took the artificial protest of these two seriously. One had the temerity to say, "If you support the AK Party on the top, it is natural for the bottom to do this." Another wrote, "The first political act of people from the Gülen congregation was recorded as a street act," also expressing his intention and expectations as such: "It will be interesting to wait and see whether members of the congregation will carry out new acts."

Mr. Gülen said last week that he wasn't supporting any of the parties and that he was at an equal distance to all of them. The overwhelming majority of the public in Turkey sides with democracy and opposed what happened during the presidential election process. Confusing this with supporting the AK Party or partisanship is tantamount to taking sides with certain people.

Should we have supported those who invented the legal scheme of the 367 quorum? Should we have found the CHP, which took this scheme to the Constitutional Court, right? Should we have propped decisions recorded by history as injurious to law? Should we have fawned upon the Higher Education Board (YÖK), which made the committee of university presidents a part of the game? Should we have followed in the footsteps of the CHP and backed politicians who boycotted Parliament, which was "kneaded with the yeast of the national will"? Should we have called the memorandum, which sees civil will under military guardianship, "beautiful statements"? Should we have spinelessly bent from one side to the other like some media companies? Why is it regarded as AK Party partisanship to be principled and adopt a protective stance toward democracy?

One mustn't forget that the conservative millions in Turkey are now conscious voters. It is being questioned which parties will bolster the expansion of liberties, secure the supremacy of law and the advancement of democracy. Why would these conscious millions support those harboring grudges against innocent people, see them as enemies and a threat to their own country? This is not partisanship; this is taking sides with democracy.