BY OKTAY EKSI
HURRIYET- Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul seems certain to become president in less than two weeks. We have always had problems and issues electing our presidents, and they have only been solved after going through serious tensions. Just consider our electing Ismet Inonu to succeed Ataturk, and Fahri Koruturk after Cevdet Sunday; the problems electing Fahri Koruturk; electing Turgut Ozal after Kenan Evren; and holding early general elections after current President Ahmet Necdet Sezer took office in 2000. All these show that our political culture lacks the maturity to calmly solve these problems.
Now we've reached the stage of solving such problems not with fights, but in line with the public's wishes. Like it or not, the public has found Gul worthy to be their president. From now on, if there is something illegitimate about his presidency, let's talk about it. If not, we should hold our tongues and accept this. This issue is as simple as it is in democracies and under the rule of law. As the person writing these lines, I hope that Gul will be a good president. But let me say it honestly that I'm not happy with how things have turned out, because we can't forget Gul's conduct when he was prime minister (in late 2002-early 2003). At that time, Gul was the prime minister of Turkey, not of his Justice and Development Party (AKP) members. However, while in office, he failed to show the skillfulness, neutrality and statesmanship expected of him. On the contrary, we saw that Gul was smiling all the time, expressing his views in a soft, careful style, but making ambiguous remarks, opening two doors on an issue, and acting confusedly on problems which required determination. Almost all of the foreign policy red lines entrusted to Gul were erased by him.
Main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal stated something more important than this. Baykal pointed to the suspicions stemming from Gul's political past, calling it unsuitable that the republic's president has a problem with the philosophy of its very foundation. He thus branded Gul a conscious member of a secretive ideological circle. If I'm not mistaken, he meant Gul's closeness to religious orders and religious communities. When Gul was in Parliament as a Felicity Party or Welfare Party deputy, he often stressed his attachment to democracy, but it's almost impossible to find an example of this, except certain pro forma remarks indicating that he has adopted the basic philosophy of the republic. When the election is over and Gul is president, everybody will watch him. Gul doesn't have the luxury of being neutral about the basic principle of the republic, because the person who lives in the Presidential Palace either adopts this philosophy and stays there, or else he leaves.