On Referendum-2
Regarding Referendum 2
April 10, 2017
On winning or losing;
For the last three elections, nearly one sixth of the voters do not participate in elections. This shows us that 10,000,000 of the nearly 60,000,000 voters will not participate in the referendum. 25,000,001 of the 50,000,000 voters will give yes vote or no vote. 24,999,999 voters will have lost with the difference of a single vote. It’s that easy to win or lose in this system.
Research companies say that the difference between yes and no is less than 1%, or even less than 0.5%. Who will win by a half point margin on April 16, and who will lose?
Whoever wins, whoever loses;
Yes side doesn’t consider the possibility of losing. Yes side enjoys the convenience of being in power. They are relying on their dominance in street and square propaganda; because they are creating this dominance themselves. Preventing the no campaign with partisans locally, and generally with its police, i.e. the law enforcement . While there is yes propaganda in mainstream media from children’s programs to magazine programs, from TV series to feature films, from news reports to discussion-commentary programs; opposition media has a shy criticism of yes along with timid praise for no. Beyond this convenience created by the “unjust” practice they established during the campaign, yes side also knows other “emergency” practices at the election day will “protect” the votes, the boxes and the election results.
Even in the case of the most negative result for yes side, they also have the convenience of being able to call a new referendum by launching a new internal or external war or aggravating an existing one. AKP has experienced this repetition technique when it made the November 1 elections to replace June 7 elections and took what it wanted.
If yes side loses;
If the yes side still lost despite the odds of all this “no losing no matter what” they will lose their motivation. This loss is also a loss of legitimacy among its mass and this is the end of yes side.
If the no wins, the opposition will make various maneuvers to prevent the power from playing the moves “to not lose even if lost”, which we wrote about. They will bring the early elections agenda and want to have similar gains in the elections process. Having won the upper hand of motivation, the opposition will try not to lose advantage by taking it to the streets, square and the parliament.
No side is considering the possibility of losing, because they are used to it. This habit also carries an intolerance for loss. The injustice during the campaign which was built in a state of emergency and the injustice during election day will increase this intolerance. Such intolerance will result either in a social uprising or a social cringe. We are telling -that the yes side has anticipated these results- from {related or unrelated individuals’ statements such as “So we do this, we do that, we put to the sword … allowed, not allowed on sharia”. In fact, they do not expect uprising in the society cowered by State of Emergency though, but uprising is one of the possibilities. In case of losing, particularly because the referendum that will be voted by this society, which has been cowered by State of Emergency, was reduced to an existential question by the opposition, the cower effect that is desired by power, will increase. This cowering will be tried to be broken down by some fight back related to identity; State of Emergency experience of Kurdish and Alevi peoples revolutionaries over many years and their resistance reflexes despite the state of emergency, may decrease the effect of this cowering that was increased. But whether this resistance will be enough in this process, is controversial.
Not To Lose, To Win;
For opposition in the parliament, winning or losing has only one meaning. That is to win or lose the elections. This is the aim of the parliamentary opposition. The understanding of the referendum as being separate from general or local elections, is a fallacy. Because in every referendum, as in the case of this referendum, the sides are the sides of the other elections. It is usual for parliamentary opposition to present every election to society and to its own voters in society as an existential false dilemma. What is not usual is for revolutionary opposition to present this “to exist-not to exist” false dilemma to society. For the ones whose claim is revolution, revolutionary organizations and individuals, using such a dilemma as a campaigning tool, calls the discussion of means becoming the ends. In the discussion of means becoming the ends, to understand what is right and what is wrong, one needs to see if the socialism propaganda was more than the electoral agenda during the elections. Socialist organization that do not make propaganda for socialism are accused of trying to “grab seats” in the parliament . In history, this discussion in socialist organizing is surpassed by using the adjectives democrat and revolutionary, as well as other polite-impolite adjectives.
As for anarchism such discussions did not take place. Anarchists, as a principle, do not establish relations of power. Fighting back an authoritarian behavior of someone else, of society, of administration, will start with not acting authoritarian to someone else. Create relationships of freedom while destroying authoritarian relationships is another anarchist principle. Resisting the manager-managed adjectives in governing relations of society, objecting the submission of individual’s will to another individual or to the community, are ends for every anarchist. And the political counterpart of this objection is non-participation in the for elections. Therefore, it is an objection by principle, not participating in elections. Anarchists can not use elections as a means like socialists do. Using such means amounts to using authority, which one has to destroy in order to create relationships of freedom, as a means. For anarchists, principle is an idea that is not based on indisputable dogma, but on experience that can be discussed.
Parliamentary opposition and socialist opposition are similar with respect to winning the power. Anarchists do not want to win the power; but to destroy the power to create a world without power. Among tides of win and lose, “April 16th Referendum” is now presented an existential slogan by both sides. For nearly 15 years, the organization of society for justice and freedom is being formed by anti-AKP-ism. The days of Taksim Revolt were the most positive days of social opposition which rose again in every election period and then declined. Every banned May 1, March 8, Newroz, ecologic resistance, resistances in docks and factories, actions in high schools and universities organized one by one, each were important on their own before these days. The Kobanê process which had strategic importance for Rojava, were at least as important as Taksim. In all these processes, in revolutionary solidarity with organizations; in the platforms that we were part of; we discussed and argued that the declarations, actions, resistance, revolts should not be narrowed down to opposing AKP. Our argument was that through AKP opposition, the oppressor/oppressed contradiction, which was the source of inequity and captivity lived by our society, was being ignored. This was a popularity centric opposition structure which overrated quantity, and therefore dismissed quality. This democrat revolutionary opposition structure, together with the parliamentary opposition, is doing again, as it does in every election, AKP opposition. In the referendum process, we are again in the false dilemma of “to exist or not to exist” created by this structure. This opposition may win in this referendum. But this win, will not be a win for the oppressed peoples, workers, women, LGBTI, youth, rivers, trees, animals in the oppressor/oppressed contradiction. For the oppressed, winning is never a win in elections.
Now the votes cast by 25,000,001 voters, will win in the referendum for constitutional amendment. And the votes cast by 24,999,999 voters will lose.
Now we must ask ourselves a numeric question; Does, over 50% always win? What if 35,000,000 voters of the 60,000,000, had not participated in the referendum, instead of the 10,000,000, and all of the 25,000,000 which participated in the referendum had given yes votes, “yes” would have won by 100%. Considering the rate of participation in this referendum, would the “yes” win be legitimate?
Not to lose justice and freedom, to win revolution ; Not to be 1 number of the election, but be an individual of revolution; Long Live Revolution, Long Live Anarchism.
Revolutionary Anarchist Action
