Gül is gone, Erdoğan loses control

He had strong words. Off and on he couldn’t help but fight. He was very careful. Every time we would feel, that Gül, right next to him, could touch his hand and say "Please don’t."

Those days were very different. The prime minister during the 2003-2007 period was different. Despite his explosions he took his steps carefully. I believe what made the prime minister brake during this mentioned period and behave in a conciliating way was Abdullah Gül. He was one of the rare people who could say to the prime minister "you are wrong on this subject." It was effective and Erdoğan would listen. After all, this is how we obtained a date for negotiations with the European Community. After all, in this regard there was no braking . Again in this same period there was a group of consultants around the prime minister. He used to listen to his consultants, trust them, heed them and do as they say É And look at today’s situation.

The prime minister fights with everybody. I don’t know, but he seems to like it. It is as if he feeds on the fights. He rags and humiliates journalists and says that society does not trust the media anymore. As if this is not enough, he announces a crusade against the Doğan group. Forget about freedom of thought; he calls for people not to buy Doğan group papers. With an unbelievable approach, he openly suppresses the Doğan group.

Furthermore, he snaps at very valuable and supportive journalists and authors when he hears simple criticism, he batters them with words like " how cute, shame on you." Fighting with the media is not enough; he fights with the DTP. Done with that, he attacks the opposition.

Forgetting about the European Community É he changes Kurdish politics that made him the Obama. In short, Prime Minister Erdoğan is changing. I look around and there is no one around him. Abdullah Gül is not there. Since he moved to Çankaya, Gül is not around him every day. He cannot hold his hand and tell him to behave differently. Former consultants are not around either. Nobody can say a thing. They fear his reaction. Maybe Erdoğan is not aware of it but the leader of the AKP, is for an important part of Turkish society not even their Obama anymore. So how can we not wish Gül was there.


Cancelling accreditations couldn't be explained
There is the impression in Turkey that every institution seeks its own journalists. An accreditation fury is going on. The military keeps somebody out of the base with accreditation; the prime ministry cancels because it "does not conform with regulations."

I spent 25 years of my journalistic life abroad and know very well how accreditation is administered. For all my life I dealt with accreditations. In the United States and Europe, accreditation is not used as discrimination. There is only one bench mark: to really be a journalist. For that, a letter obtained from the paper or TV suffices.

No need for that much discrimination Ğ even during the cold war NATO gave accreditation to reporters from Russian and the Warsaw pact. The White House admits journalists from all over the world. So does the EU commission and the council as well. There an accreditation of a journalist close to the administration is not canceled, they are treated differently. We can call it positive or negative discrimination. Special briefings are given to those journalists that they sympathize with, scoop stories are leaked. This way they are rewarded and others punished (!) but this is done with a fine correctness.

Canceling accreditation is a rare thing. Cancellation is administered to those who have committed a shameful deed, have spied or hurt the present institution. There is no such application "that spreads the smell of punishing the opposition" as we know it.

I talked to the press department of the Prime Ministry about the cancellation of the accreditation of seven journalists. I noticed that they have three criteria (1. Having a yellow press card, 2. Behave in accordance with the rules, 3. If the news is in regards to the Prime Ministry, check and consult the press department) and that the accreditations of the seven journalists was canceled because they did not comply with some of the rules. Now that’s a faulty attitude.

The cancellation of an accreditation is very important. It creates questions in the minds of the people. Either one comes to the conclusion that "he/she was sent away because opposing news was written about the prime ministry," or the suspicion arises that these journalists have committed a shameful deed or felony. Both possibilities mislead society.

In order not to misled, it needs to be explained why the accreditations were canceled. This way it would be resolved. But if those journalists indeed annoyed the prime minister and thus were excluded, then there is nothing left but to accept this shame and keep quiet.


"We wouldn’t know who is Sunni or Alevi"
Yesterday in my article I wrote that "the Alevi could not become Chief of Staff or a general." This is a common belief and often repeated among the Alevi. And I repeated this belief.

The office of commander in chief called and said "there is definitely no such discrimination." My addressee spoke most clearly: " If we were to do such a thing, when first admitting people to the military we would have to ask, ’Are you Alevi or Sunni?’, But there is no such question. Nobody knows who is what." "Well, could you name any Alevi Chief of Staff or general?" I asked. "No I cannot, for, as I said before, nobody knows anybody’s religious preference nor would anybody ask." I’ve been told.