Gathering around a table is nice, but this is not that table!

It is quite difficult to make a general evaluation before seeing the conflicts between the reasons bringing together the components of the opposition “table of six” – or the intentions forcing them to unite – and the current disputes. This, of course, applies to disputes concerning candidate selection as well. If the problem in question was limited to who is going to be the leader, it could have been overcome. However, none of the leaders are able to neutralize the conflicts between the past and the present. This is a reality beyond them as well. 

 “Six dissimilar [parties]” seemed to be the right description, but going deeper, the inadequacy of this description becomes clear. Are such differences insignificant? It is impossible to say no. Back in the day, big groups’ ideological identities took shape based on visible differences. Hence, these differences need to be taken into consideration. Yet the leaders gathered around the “table of six” attempted to build a new identity based on the acceptance that visible differences are insignificant. There is no doubt that this was an elitist approach. Examples of this were seen many times in the past. We can say that the groups spearheading the establishment of the current table of six, and, in fact, the actors forming the grounds, are also taking an elitist approach. They are clearly seeking to trivialize ideological identity differences. Yet, these groups and actors led in the past the sacrifice of numerous lies for the sake of solidifying these differences. It should be noted that a significant portion of these were the same individuals and groups. 

 Gathering around a table is quite meaningful depending on the reason, but this does not apply to the table of six in question. In addition, even though those who have a seat around the “table of six” underline the importance of gathering around a table, they know that this is not that table. The fact that they always focus on secondary matters despite meeting numerous times, shows this. There has been no suspicion in question to date regarding the reasons and objectives that unite them. For example, as openly declared by the U.S. and the U.K., they are still determined to oust President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. However, just as they are still unable to come up with the revolutionary ideas necessary to realize this intention, it has also become clear that they are not equipped to activate the mass support they need. The moment they understood they would not be able to achieve the determined objective through organized interventions is the moment they understood the criticality of mass support. Hence, the significance of gathering around a single table was emphasized once more. Thus, the “six dissimilar [parties]” description was correct in this respect, but this is not that table. 

 The leaders who have a seat around the table came together on numerous occasions, but they postponed the candidate matter. This was more so due to a lack of response to who would be more successful, rather than who would be preferred. Therefore, they paid attention to spreading over time the answer to who would run as a candidate. They believed they would thus build revolutionary ideas and achieve mass support. This method is sometimes preferred in international relations. Sidelining big problems while focusing on secondary matters has proven to be beneficial in this context. In the event an agreement is reached in the resolution of problems with second-degree importance, the significance of big problems may be alleviated, or as the parties involved develop their problem-solving skills, it may not be as challenging as thought to reach a final decision. It seems the “table of six” components believe they can make this work. But the issue is that they applied the method concerning the resolution of international matters by changing it. They did not focus on solving massive problems such as the lack of revolutionary ideas and achieving mass support. Yet this was their big problem. The real reason they spread the process over time was to achieve mass support. 

Will they find a new way once they realize they are at a dead-end, or will they resort again to the intervention of organized groups? We should seek the answer to this question in the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality mayor election. Surely there have been quite a few changes since then. But as claimed by the elitists, Istanbul did not vote for rightful victimization. The organized groups’ intervention power became clear in both the first and second elections. Hence, they will not choose to risk seeking a new path. This is enough to show what they aim to achieve by spreading the process over time.