As I wrote these words, it was the morning after a rather lively night in Istanbul. It was hard getting home down the roads where there were endless clashes. That night was the most aggressive and angriest since the Gezi Park protests began. For the first time, troops were held in readiness. Thousands of people walked over the Bosphorus Bridge to the European side. There were clashes in many provinces of the country. Let us now go back to the week before all these events. One week ago, there was a police operation early in the morning against the local occupation of Taksim Square by communist groups. The governor of Istanbul updated the public via Twitter just about every minute and said that the young people in Gezi Park and who first started the protest would not be touched. The aim was to get rid of the banners that belonged to the illegal communist groups that had occupied the middle of Taksim Square since the start of the protests and had closed the area off to traffic by building barricades, and to clear those groups away. The operation lasted all day and was successful. The vanguard of the communist uprising, engaged in a show of strength, was moved out of Taksim. The next few days were set aside for meetings between government officials and the protesters in Gezi Park. The meetings between protesters and the governor of Istanbul and the prime minister were completed within a few days and the following decisions were taken: reconciliation, to wait for the judicial ruling halting the Gezi Park project, and that even if the court ruled the project should continue, the project should be put to a plebiscite in Istanbul. In return, the government demanded that the protesters halt their action and abandon Gezi Park. It also promised to listen to all demands in the period that followed. For young people demanding democracy, that was quite a democratic solution. Reconciliation, the judicial process and a plebiscite. Was that not what had been wanted right from the start? The protesters were pleased, and Turkish writers were pleased. For the first time, commentators were positive and optimistic. Everyone was sure that this unnecessary disorder would come to an end. Until the next morning. The Gezi Park representatives held a five-hour meeting and decided: We are not pulling out the park. That decision was a serious shock in Turkey. Despite having supported the protesters right from the start, the Turkish journalist Serdar Turgut said: “This could have been a way out in Turkey. But I was devastated when I heard they had decided to maintain the resistance.” And he added: “Those who took this decision are unaware that their decision will set Turkey back and will undo all their efforts.” The journalist Nihal Bengisu Karaca said: “No other administration in any country in the world has made such efforts to talk to the public. Some people need to take a new decision about Gezi Park.” The journalist Yusuf Kaplan said of the decision: “This is a pyrrhic victory for romantic socialists' opportunism.” Markar Esayan, a journalist of Armenian origins, said: “The meetings with the government after 18 days were a win for the Gezi Park protesters. But with this decision they have set back all their gains. They have missed an opportunity.” I agree. That was a major missed opportunity to come by a democratic solution. What was there to resist now that everything was going their way, when they were being listened to and when the desired democratic climate had been established? What more needed to be done? That decision cast a shadow over the just cause, innocence and sincerity of the young people who were there to protect the environment and their democratic rights. Many people questioned that. The government reacted fast. The police were in Gezi Park that same evening. Tents were torn down, the protesters were scattered and the park was emptied. What remained was an uprising all over the country. Many people answered the question of “What more needs to be done?” by saying, “The government must resign. Do you still not get it?” Local pressure was so intense that it even echoed from the ranks of the European Parliament. The way that politicians representing Europe and the member countries of the EU threw slogans about was unbelievable. What is more, the Turkey they took such hate-filled decisions about is not even a member of the EU. It has always been the communists who have expected a bloody revolution in my country. But now some young people are lining up with the communists for the sake of defending democracy. They have no idea that communism is a system that will destroy and annihilate them. They are unaware that if communism comes to the country they will be unable to take to the streets and protest, and that if they do, they will be met by bullets, not tear gas. The Turkish journalist Nuh Yülmaz is quite right to say, “if the conditions for ‘revolution' are developed fully, it will come. ‘Highlighting contradictions' to lead society to ‘revolution' is an old-type political tactic.” It is hard for a handful of communists in the country developing in the most stable way in the world to overthrow democracy by revolution. But a society provoked in seconds by a few Twitter messages needs to know that the way to bring down a government in a democratic country is not by backing those who resort to violence on the streets. That was maybe one of the greatest mistakes made by the Turkish government: our young people have not been educated against the threat of communism. They are unaware what the real danger is. What we have learned is that a public disposed to anger can easily be roused by reports spread on Twitter about “injuries in Taksim” accompanied by pictures of people who were actually hurt in Syria, and false messages about “they are firing acid water” and “tens of people killed”. Some of the foreign press can use this against your country, too. Those who seek their own advantage can make use of the hatred stirred up by these acts of provocation. But every person in the country will be the loser. You can express your demands from the government by going out onto the streets and you can demand more democracy and liberty. These things need to happen in democracies. But if a group truly seeks democracy while another resorts to hatred and violence that slay democracy, then we need to look for an ulterior motive. I have no doubt about the good intentions of the peaceful young environmentalists there, and I support their democratic demands all the way. I agree with all my heart with their request that the prime minister use more affectionate language. But we need to differentiate between those peaceful young people and those who want violence, where democratic demands end and despotism starts. The days ahead look like being lively ones. Much may have changed in Turkey by the time you read this. But let us not forget, Allah creates all things for the best.
The writer is a commentator and religious and political analyst on Turkish TV and a peace activist.
