Is there a constant undercurrent pushing us towards the West?

In the election period, the 'Common Policies Consensus Document' released by the opposition camp was significant in many ways. Considering that the parties signing the document represented right, left, and religious groups based on former categories, there shouldn't have been room for ideological contradictions to allow this collaboration. Therefore, identifying the factors that brought these parties together and led them to sign the same document could help us understand the general trends. Naturally, I also attempted to discern the spirit of the document. In fact, I pointed out that the consensus document was crafted with the effort to reset Türkiye to its default settings. The opposition parties signing the consensus were operating from a Eurocentric perspective, which inherently stood in contrast to President Erdoğan's political approach. According to them, Türkiye shouldn't stray from the Western-centric worldview, and they openly articulated this viewpoint. As the election day approached, their belief in victory only strengthened, and this belief was clearly reflected, particularly in the fields of economy and foreign policy, with their Eurocentric outlook.

It was known that political parties in Türkiye, and even ideological groups to some extent, leaned towards the West. Especially after September 12, 1980, ideological differences suffered significant damage, rendering the old groups less relevant. The groups representing the new era began to rise incredibly fast, especially in the 1990s. Today's political parties and some institutions are formally a continuation of the past, but without understanding the changes in personalities and ideas, it is difficult to comprehend the process and interpret the emerging picture. Therefore, we cannot explain the commitment to the Eurocentric worldview and the desire to reset Türkiye to its default settings based solely on the formal characteristics of the political party representatives who signed the 'Common Policies Consensus Document.' This situation also applies to post-election developments. The article we discussed last summer by Murat Ülker is quite important in this regard. He, too, emphasized a Eurocentric worldview. So, what does it mean to reemphasize such a view after the election results are revealed? Does emphasizing a surname like Rothschild during this period and trying to eliminate the family's notorious reputation hold any special significance? Isn't this a risky move?

Opposition parties were more open in their approach, as they accepted the election results. We can assume that this attitude continued by different circles after the election. The announcement of the new cabinet and the apparent shift in economic and foreign policy gave the impression that a new approach had been adopted. Undoubtedly, this impression could be interpreted as a departure from the pre-election situation. The rapid developments concerning Sweden in foreign policy and the new realities in the economic field are ambitious enough to be considered as a transformation. Therefore, it is natural to expect different interpretations to emerge.

As a result, it is not surprising that some circles interpret the process as a spontaneous return to default settings. What is surprising is the identity of those who want to play a role in this. Under these circumstances, another question should be asked. Was adaptation achieved very easily, or are we facing continuity with established networks of relationships? Or is there a "ripple effect" constantly pushing us in the same direction? Of course, while seeking answers to these questions, we need to consider long-term perspectives and not limit our viewpoint to the existence of certain groups.

To conclude that conspiracy theories and anti-democratic sentiments lead to poverty, laziness, and helplessness in the face of wealth, the questions must have remained unchanged for at least two centuries. I can say that for those who repeatedly ask the same questions to obtain the same answers, time, space, and individuals have not changed at all. Their minds are probably "occupied" by the concepts of good and evil. They perceive events with a universal perspective and judge based on success and failure by minimizing differences. They also determine who will go to heaven or hell accordingly. If this is the case, I can say that they fail to see even the dynamics of the world we live in. So, there is no underlying ripple effect constantly dragging us to the same place as they believe. They just have faith in it, that's all. They also fail to assess the developments that occurred in Türkiye after the elections correctly. This doesn't prove that a conspiracy has been plotted against them. It's just the course of events.