Necip F. Bahadir
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan finished his parliamentary group speech and headed toward the exit with heavy steps. The full weight of his newly turned 72 years seemed to be upon him. People were reminded of the remark he once directed at his mentor, former Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan: “He’s seventy; he’s finished!” His posture and walk were unsteady. He struggled to move his foot forward. There was no trace left of that old “Kasımpaşa toughness.”
During the speech, he did not respond to any of the messages from his coalition partner, Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Chairman Devlet Bahçeli. Yet when Chairman Bahçeli said, “The two Ahmets should return to office!” the person he was addressing was none other than President Erdoğan. The MHP leader also added, “The status of İmralı must be clarified!” President Erdoğan did not engage at all. He preferred to appear neutral.
He said neither “yes” nor “no”… How much longer will the two Ahmets wait? Does Chairman Bahçeli’s word carry no weight? What happened to the rules of political partnership? President Erdoğan ignored it—pretending not to hear or see.
The “status” issue that MHP Chairman Bahçeli voiced so loudly has turned into a complete riddle. Even ordinary people on the street are wondering, “What status are they talking about?” Yet there was not a peep from President Erdoğan, to whom all eyes turned. He touched on every topic at the podium but skipped over the matters of the “two Ahmets” and “a status for Abdullah Öcalan.”
Years ago, President Erdoğan had criticized his mentor, former Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan, with those very words in an interview.
As usual after the group meeting, journalists intercepted him, and a rather strange dialogue took place. President Erdoğan’s answers seemed very odd to me. I watched the footage repeatedly and reread the transcript again and again. His fatigue was evident in every aspect.
I began to wonder: Is there not only “mental fatigue” but also “mental confusion”? It raised serious questions in my mind. A few months ago, there had already been talk of a “detachment from reality.” Has the problem worsened?
Let’s look at what happened. The exchange unfolded exactly as follows:
A journalist asked:
“Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Chairman Devlet Bahçeli said, ‘The status gap of İmralı should be eliminated.’ What do you say about this?”
A very clear question… Chairman Bahçeli’s remarks about “status” had already generated wide coverage in the media and public opinion the day before. President Erdoğan could not possibly have been unaware—at least he shouldn’t have been. Perhaps he failed to grasp the question. Maybe he was buying time to think, because he responded, “Huh…?” to the reporter.
What was there to repeat in such a simple, one-sentence question?
The journalist emphasized the phrase “status gap…”
President Erdoğan replied: “What gap…?”
Does he also have trouble hearing? Or, like former President İsmet İnönü, is he choosing not to hear what he does not like? Why break a sentence into pieces just to understand it? Is this normal or healthy?
The journalist repeated, “Status…” President Erdoğan continued walking slowly and heavily. The crowd surrounded him. No one intervened. His advisers quietly observed the exchange.
If someone had said, “No questions,” the reporters would have dispersed and President Erdoğan would have continued on his way.
Finally, “the penny dropped”… President Erdoğan understood the question (though I am not entirely sure he did). But still there was no real answer. He could only say, “Status gap… huh?” The journalist repeated once more:
“MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli asked how this status gap will be closed. What would you like to say about that?”
Everyone focused on President Erdoğan. Every word from his mouth could have been headline material. The public’s curiosity could have been satisfied. The words again came out slowly and heavily. He said exactly this:
“İmralı is currently being administered by our Ministry of Justice in the manner deemed necessary.”
Yes… What are we supposed to understand from that?
Politicians sometimes kick the ball out of bounds. If they do not want to answer, they resort to wordplay. They drown the response in humor. If they truly do not wish to speak, they say “no comment” and move on. Saying, “Such an important matter cannot be discussed on the spot,” is also an option.
Indeed, this is not a simple issue. I have witnessed many political Q&A sessions, but I have never seen anything like this. What did President Erdoğan mean? Was he avoiding an answer? Was he making a joke? His facial expression was frozen. I saw no one smiling.
When MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli said “İmralı,” did he mean the prison on the island? Would anyone interpret it that way? Did President Erdoğan really understand “İmralı” as the prison itself? I doubt it—but I cannot completely dismiss the suspicion. If that were the case, heaven help the country…
And it would mean there is a very serious problem. Yet President Erdoğan’s answer was not evaluated from this angle. Neither Chairman Bahçeli’s message nor the journalist’s question concerned the prison’s legal status. What was meant by İmralı was imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan himself.
I hope President Erdoğan was simply trying to dodge the question with what he thought was a clever remark. Otherwise, concerns about “mental issues and detachment from reality” would come to the forefront—and then the matter would involve not only politics but also medicine. President Erdoğan’s mental health concerns not just himself and his family but the entire country; that hardly needs saying. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot shake the feeling that there is a question mark here. This exchange should also be examined from a medical perspective.
Who will debate what?
This is more important than what MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli meant by “Öcalan’s status.” Besides, should such a sensitive and critical issue be spoken of in riddles? Isn’t Abdullah Öcalan’s status already clear? His legal situation is evident.
Instead of clarifying the matter, MHP Deputy Chairman Feti Yıldız tossed the ball to the public, saying, “This issue should be debated…” Debated how, and by whom? He should have explained that as well. The pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) has labeled the status “chief negotiator.” Is this what the MHP wants discussed? Or is it the “right to hope” and its consequences?
MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli has no right to raise the issue and then withdraw. He was the one who brought “the two Ahmets and İmralı’s status” onto the agenda. Shouldn’t he also follow through?
Shouldn’t we expect an evaluation or comment from Chairman Bahçeli in response to President Erdoğan’s one-sentence, peculiar reply? Is politics merely rhetoric and words? Do words have any value unless they turn into action and policy? Chairman Bahçeli should speak directly to President Erdoğan. He should be able to say, “When I said İmralı’s status, I meant Abdullah Öcalan.”
The only ones who can clarify Abdullah Öcalan’s status are President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli together. If there is to be a debate, the two coalition partners should conduct it. Whether he would be called a “founding leader” or declared a “chief negotiator,” I cannot say…
After that, the public would express its opinion. Some would accept it, others would object. İYİ Party Chairman Müsavat Dervişoğlu has also offered a suggestion: “If you love him so much, pin a badge on him and take him as your co-chair.”
The answer to that cannot simply be, “Do you want bloodshed?”
On one side, there is the mental confusion and detachment from reality reflected in President Erdoğan’s single sentence. On the other, there is the issue of Abdullah Öcalan’s status.
Which is more alarming for the country? Is it a choice between the gallows and the sword?
Or is it both? It seems so…
The situation is not just grave—it is extremely serious.
Am I being overly suspicious, or do you also notice this strange situation filled with question marks?
