Is Being in Opposition a Common Denominator?

The relationship between government and opposition is the never-ending ordeal of political science. It is rarely possible to see this ordeal turn into a dialogue that benefits the country. Why? Because the government is cast as the “other” of the opposition, and the opposition as the “other” of the government. When this positioning spills over from politicians’ rhetoric into the language of their followers and supporters, an unstoppable dialogue of the deaf takes hold, not only in the political arena but in society as well.

With government and opposition actors who build their political language on entrenching “othering”, it is impossible to form any common denominator, whether political, social, cultural or legal.

An opposition that responds to the government’s othering language not with a principled stance but with a mere reactive one has unfortunately lost its function as an effective mechanism for scrutinising government policy. Ever since this function was lost, the government has begun to evolve towards a totalitarian character. That, in short, is what has happened in Turkey. The opposition parties, which have failed to use the legislature’s oversight and scrutiny mechanisms effectively, bear serious responsibility for how quickly this process has come to shape our lives.

Are the opposition parties in parliament the only ones responsible for this loss of function, which stems from a reactive rather than a principled stance? We must also speak of the responsibility of the “opponents” outside parliament.

Groups that the government has othered because of faith, ethnicity, ideology, different ways of life, political preferences and so on define themselves as opponents of the government. Unfortunately, these groups, which hold different views and positions, sometimes use the government’s divisive language and terminology, consciously or unconsciously. This undermines the struggle against unlawful, anti-democratic, repressive and exclusionary practices, and turns into an error that makes hopes of a common denominator almost impossible.

Is a Common Denominator Possible?

Being an opponent can be a status that arises from being othered by the government, or it can arise from a person defining themselves as an “opponent”. Of course, if the government’s othering attitude had not become dominant, it would not have become so common for individuals to define themselves through one of the opposition identities. But the real problem is the tendency of a totalitarian government to present all its opponents under a single roof. This tendency often manifests itself in threatening rhetoric coming from the highest levels of government. All opponents are branded traitors or terrorists. Frankly, I find the efforts of some opponents to distance themselves from this categorisation in the face of such branding by the government a very sad struggle.

On the other hand, if the idea of a common denominator is shaped solely as opposition to the government, the common ground that unites people today will inevitably become the argument for a new division when the government changes.

Every opposition actor and supporter who normalises the government’s demonisation of people it first labels as the other and then as traitor, terrorist, spy, supporter of this or that faction forgets that, when they least expect it, they too may be demonised by the same labelling method. I do not think it is necessary to list the individual names and labels here, since new ones are added to them day by day.

So can common denominators be built within the broad spectrum of the opposition in order to take a stand on the various issues of life? I think the vast majority would answer this question “Yes, they can.” My answer is also “yes”. But why can this idea, which seems perfectly possible in theory and in fact sounds very appealing, not be put into practice effectively? Perhaps the devil is in the detail. Is that really so?

The Devil Is in the Detail

I think there is a problem with the way the saying “The devil is in the detail” is usually used. I find the interpretation that refers to what is mysterious and detailed, to the need for fine craftsmanship to achieve success, neither correct nor sufficient. When we swap the two parts and say “In the detail lies the devil”, it feels as if we are making a more accurate statement.

That is to say:

I think the biggest obstacle to the government’s opponents coming together by building on an increasing number of “justified” shared concerns lies hidden in “small” details. You could also call them “little devilries”. Because they do not look at life through the same lens, opposition groups see these “small” details as major divisive factors. Yet every opposition group has been wounded in the same place: the violation of basic human values and universal legal principles by the government. One opponent ignoring the blatantly trampled rights of another remains the greatest obstacle to the emergence of a common denominator.

The subtleties in the details (in fact the devilries) reach such a level that the details at the points of unity become the cause of division. For human nature is very prone to inflating divisions. The divisive rhetoric and labels dropped into the opponents’ laps by the government’s leading actors themselves are more than enough to raze the common ground the opponents need in order to grow stronger.

One or more ways to overcome this must be found.

I think highlighting similarities and accepting differences in the details as social enrichment would be a good starting point for giving substance to the idea of a “common denominator”. And then setting out on a sincere struggle to bring universal human values to life.

In short, being in opposition is not a common denominator, even if it seems to be. The only denominator that can unite opponents is not the label of opposition but the embrace of shared democratic, human and universal values and the struggle for them.