How are we going to live together?

The discussion concerning life styles, because of manipulation or a lack of a unanimous agreement on its fundamental commonality, is always coming to the table as an argument. The totalitarian secularists, who utilized the monopoly-style rulership, and ruled and determined the public space, economy and politics, are now uncomfortable because of the rupture of this "balance". As time passed, we have observed that the uncomfortable ones were not only the totalitarian secularists, but also certain liberal, left and moderate secularists who integrated to this mass in defiance to Erdogan. The secular umbrella, which can be comprehended as totalitarianism, brought together with many diverse groups. Those who struggled against Erdogan for sovereignty and the result gather from this tension became the essential strategy because Erdogan could not have been made conflicting with his identity or problematic in that regard.

In the process of the people"s revolution, even though this revolution was made in its politically legitimate way and was spread increasingly, the grading tones vanished and bipolar power tension was seen. However, this did not eliminate the reality of grading tones. True, the old was to be purified but what was the new going to be like? We cannot leave out every kind of concern labeling it as "sectarian" because Turkey is a multi-cultural country having a diverse range of ethnicities.

If we had established a new constitution and in a relatively calmer medium, we would have made a mutual negotiation contract and the hybridism of the process would have suggested confidence to everyone. However, in a country where the struggle for sovereignty is given such a medium cannot be calm. I am considering AK Party as a negotiable, an original political power which has no secret agenda and as a motor for the democratization of the country in its ideal terms.

I find the theses arguing, "the first two eras of Erdogan were pretty good and then it started to went down the hill" to be weak and biased. I believe that people who supported Erdogan at some point made up this argument as an excuse to account for their radical switch.

In this sense, in my previous article where I quoted Erdogan"s word "we are looking for clean water to turn our face", his self-criticism of the Islamic world and thoughts on anti-Semitism are raising my hope. It would be such a great loss if conservatives turned to their narrow vision and romantic characters such as during the times of National Vision, because this was the distinction Ak Party created. What changed Turkey was its openness with one"s neighbors, without steering the wheel to the end point of Millet-i Hakime to Kemalist from the end point of secular elitism. Also, AK Party opened the way to the democratic order and while doing so, it did not stay away from its religious identity, but maintained it with self-confidence and did not lose itself through self-hate.

Because those who do not value themselves cannot value others.

A while ago, spokesman Bülent Arinç, after exaggerating his praise on Erdogan, stated a few words that would quietly harm the presidential election campaign of Erdogan. He said, "Chastity is so important. It"s not just a name. It"s an ornament for women just as it is for men. The woman must be chaste. Both men and women must be so and not rascal. The man must be loyal to his wife. And the woman must be chaste. She must know her mahrams and non-mahrams. She mustn"t laugh loudly in the public. She mustn"t be attractive with all her gestures. She must protect her chastity".

The problem is not in the content of words. It is about in which identity one is expressing these ideas and in terms of what field. Here comes the issue which I tried to make an introduction in my previous article and which I continued it today by raising the question on how to establish a social contract or the common ethics in the treatment of our "neighbors".

Turkey is an heir of a multi cultural and multi ethnical empire. The Ottomans established a mutual contract for co-existence that was beyond its time, which it operated well mostly until the collapse of the empire. In comparison, this country was under the one-party regime dictatorship. We have all seen how harmful that was.

Our freedom concerning privacy is under the guarantee of the operating social contract based off of the democratic negotiations in the public space. While society members who have subjective values comprise private ethics, the common ethics arises in the engagement with others, which is a set of rules that bind everyone. This can manifest as a written document like the constitution or in a non-written form and is obeyed by the society in general.

Of course, the common ethics or the social contract is not independent from the subjective ethics or traditions. In the formation, they stem from traditions, become hybrid, and correspond to the big category. In a democratic country, all the layers of the society add a value to the common ethics and the life itself decides some of these to be permanent to the amount of people"s claim. To engineer this or apply force breaks down its development. As a matter of fact, totalitarianism derives not from the defended values but forcing it to others.

In a free society, every member belonging to every sort of group possesses the freedom for living in abiding by their values, taking place in every organ freely, spreading their values or propagating them, too. Those who rule the country or utilize the power of bureaucracy in the name of the people are not expected to act on their own subjective contracts but to be loyal to their own social contracts.

An imam preaching on the sermon chair or a TV channel broadcasting programs in relation to Islamic life styles is a given right. However, a minister or a prime minister, security officer or a headman in the neighborhood when they generalize and reflect their own personal value to their execution in a given multi-cultural, social structure, it will cause problems. Moreover, this situation may include a risk for the values for the sake of which they are spoken because it alienates some people as the other and gives rise to the perception of threat by others and damages the confidence.

Our democratness is tested in the engagement with others. The social contract has to hold a hybrid character as it is apparent from its name. This hybrid state is the guarantee of all the identities because it belongs to everyone.