Politics sometimes resembles a theater stage. The roles are clear, the lines are familiar, the set is often unchanging. But every time the curtain opens, it is as if it is being played for the first time. Özgür Özel's latest outburst resonates on this very stage:
“We are facing almost a red-handed situation. With the words ‘by-elections are not on our agenda’, Mr. Erdoğan has made the historic mistake of openly violating the constitution and giving directives as the executive on a matter that is the responsibility of the parliament.”
The sentence is strong. The emphasis is strong. The objection is pertinent.
But when you look at the stage from a distance, the following question comes to mind: Is this really the first time we are watching this play?
The political climate shaped under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has long been characterized by the executive making its weight felt more and more. The distance between the legislature and the executive is sometimes as thin as a constitutional page and sometimes as thick as the reality of politics. In such a situation, the “border violation” debates are now more like a periodic reminder than a sudden crisis.
This is precisely why the emphasis on “caught red-handed” in every new debate, even if it remains justified, creates a sense of déjà vu. It is as if we have been standing at the same intersection for years, watching the same rule violations, but each time we start the conversation with “Oh really?”.
This is where the devil's advocacy comes in:
If this is not a “first”, why do we still construct language as if it were a “first time”?
Perhaps politics likes to magnify the impact of the moment rather than memory. Every statement carries a bit of headline, a bit of emotion, a bit of “shock effect”. But this language has a side effect: Making continuity invisible.
It's not just the content of the statement, it's the tone. Because sometimes the most powerful criticism is not to say “we are shocked”, but to say “we already know this and that is exactly why we object”.
But a sharper political language is possible:
Diagnose habits instead of pretending to be surprised.
Instead of reacting instantly, exposing continuity.
Because politics is not only a field of instant reflexes, but also of collective memory. And the biggest rupture in a country begins not when rules are violated, but when those violations become commonplace.
The real problem is no longer the violation itself, but the automatization of our reaction to it.
We are surprised
We condemn
And then we wait for the next “like it's the first time” moment.
Isn't it time to go back and ask ourselves this question?
Are we really surprised when we watch the same play on the same stage...
Or do we think that pretending to be surprised is the least risky language of politics?
Maybe it is time to change that sentence:
“Not ”we are shocked"...
“Yes, it happened again. And we will not normalize it.”
Because if we are still surprised by things, it's not what happened... it's what we don't want to remember.