Will Mr. Ekmeleddin change his name?

Despite Ramadan, the presidential election campaign is continuing with full speed. I was at the parliament yesterday; watched the leaders" in-group meetings and talked with ministers and MPs. The Prime Minister had a speech in the AK Party group meeting and yet his team was preoccupied with the Denizli program.

As soon as the Prime Minister ended his speech, he returned to his office. Then the Minister of Justice showed up at his office in order to inform him on his Yozgat program for Thursday.

Since Mr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu hails from Yozgat, the Prime Minister"s Yozgat program turned into a more interesting case. Mr. Prime Minister is not from Yozgat, unlike Mr. Ihnsanoglu; however, he has visited Yozgat more than 5 times.

Anyway, let us get back to the parliament talks. We joined the group meetings yesterday. As soon as Mr. Prime Minister said, "I am partial…", I looked around and found how all my colleagues were all at ears, paying full attention.

He added "If this brother of yours will be elected (referring to himself), he won"t be an impartial president. There are two sides in this question. It is either the state or the nation. I will be on the side of the nation".

As I was looking around to smell the air, a huge applause suddenly broke out.

After that, the Prime Minister added, "He is not a real presidential candidate as if he was a vase and the opposition is trying to elect an ornament." Indeed, let us think about that. What are we voting for other than a vase, craft? If we ask Mr. Ekmeleddin the same question, according to him we are voting for a "guardian", as he said, "I am the guardian for the state." This is not a simple word it has a deep historical trace.

During the first years of the Turkish republic, Kazim Karabekir and his friends founded The Progressive Republican Party against the People"s Party. The People"s Party represented the state whereas the Progressive Republican Party represented the nation. It happened so that the state "silenced" the nation. That is, they closed the Progressive Republican Party. After that, Fethi Okyar and his friends founded the Liberal Republican Party. The People"s Party represented the voice of the state and the other represented the voice of the nation. Again, the state silenced the nation. In 1946, on January 7 Celal Bayar and his friends founded the Democrat Party. The People"s Party represented the mandatory state, while the Democrat Party represented the idea "Enough, the final word lies with the people", as we have it today. This time, they could not close the party, but instead they overthrew the government through a coup on May 27, 1960. Although roles, parties and leaders have changed over the time, the essence of the fight remains the same today. It is the struggle between the state and the nation. Indeed, Mr. Ihsanoglu said, "I am the guardian of the state". This is exactly what we are saying. We have been saying that Mr. Ihsanoglu was brought to Turkey to watch the old regime. And based on this reason, we were objecting to his guardianship position as the president, because there is no need for that. There have been quite a few presidents in the country who considered themselves the guardians of the regime. To begin with, Atatürk and Inönü considered themselves as the founder of the regime. And then, Cemal Gürsel considered himself as the guardian of the May 27 coup. From Cevdet Sunay to Kenan Evren, or from Fahri Korutürk to Ahmet Necdet Sezer, they were presidents who considered Çankaya as the guardianship of the regime.

When Demirel took his presidential seat among the guardians of presidents on February 28, the picture was filled. Well, this is the problem. That"s why Mr. Ihsanoglu should not be the president because we don"t need a guardian president. We have seen many of them and made us pay a great price.

They forbade many things to us, collaborated with the army, and overlooked the overthrowing of the elected governments. Çankaya became the center for aiding and abetting the junta for the sake of protecting the regime. The state guardians banned the Muslim woman"s hijab, or headscarf. Kurds were not allowed to speak their languages and Alevites were not permitted to build their cemevis. Unsolved murders constantly occurred under the wings of this guardianship mentality. We truly suffered from such guardianship. It became a scar on our feet that hurt all the time and even so from the back.

While we were preparing to get rid of the guardianship, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu turned up and told us, "I am the guardian of the old Turkey". That is "the state"s guardian" or the Gezi guardian or the constitutional law guardian or, in short, whatever belongs to the old Turkey, that"s what his guardianship is about. There is no doubt with that. It"s just that we don"t need a guardian. Conversely, we need presidents who will purge the guardianship mentality. That"s exactly why we want to elect Recep Tayyip Erdogan in order that he can throw the guardian-presidents at Çankaya to the garbage of the history.

We don"t need someone who will guard the regime. We need a president who will represent the national will and protect it.

We need a president of whom we can be sure. When our values are under attack, he will stand firmly against it.

Recently, a columnist Yildiray Ogur authored a wonderful article with a reference to Mr. Ihsanoglu"s name change. Ogur writes, "Taking along his mother with him in 1970, Muhammed Ihsanoglu comes to Turkey. That"s how the change starts. He changes his name because it looks too Islamist to be accepted into the PhD program. Ironically, again on the eve of the coup on March 3 in 1971, he extracts his name "Muhammed" from his identity and modifies it as "Mehmet"''. Ogur tracks this down and finds out that "there is another revision he goes for in his name on January 31, 1978. This time he transforms his name with Arabic connotation from "Ihsan" to Ihsanoglu".

A name and a last name suitable for all ages.

If Mr. "Ekmel" adds a "Mustafa Kemal" to his name during the election process, it will be just perfect! However, a question arises: How possible is it that a person who is not able to claim "Muhammed" for his name will protect our values if he rises to Çankaya?