The "He Is Hostile to the AK Party Government" Claim

Partly true

Claim

Alparslan Kuytul is constantly hostile to the AK Party government and opposes the administration's actions merely for the sake of having opposed them.

Claimed by: Konuşmalarının kırpılmış kesitlerini yayan sosyal medya hesapları ve bazı haber yayınları21 July 2018

Fact

The claim is constructed by lining up, one after another, criticisms belonging to different years. The support openly given in those same years is not taken into the line-up. Yet that too is on record:

the opening of the middle-school tier of the imam hatip schools,
the resolution of the headscarf issue,
the decision to open separate prayer rooms for female and male students in schools,
his finding it right, in his speech of 27 August 2013, that Türk Hava Kurumu's authority to collect sacrificial hides was withdrawn,
his seeing the 2013 Gezi events as something like a coup attempt against the government and finding them wrong,
his counting the operation of 17-25 December 2013 a coup and condemning the structure behind it,
his opposing the blaming of an entire foundation in the abuse case at the Ensar Foundation.

The sentence he utters about the headscarf and prayer-room decisions is clear: "When they resolved the headscarf issue earlier, I said that I congratulated the government on that decision, on that success; and I congratulate them for this decision too."

Why is this label "Partly true"?

This part is true: the criticism really does exist. It is continuous, it was made openly and it is at times harsh. We do not deny this.

But the existence of criticism is not proof of hostility. Hostility throws everything the other side does into the same basket. What happens here is the opposite: the decisions were assessed one by one, some of them were openly supported, some were found wrong. In Kuytul's own words, "there are matters we have criticised, and there are matters we have appreciated." Calling a wrong a wrong is not hostility but a standard of judgement, as long as one goes on calling a right a right.

What does the claim measure?

"Hostility" is a heavy word and a measurable claim: if a person is hostile to a government, he opposes that government even where it is right. The question must therefore be this — in those same years, from the same lectern, was a single positive sentence uttered about that same government's decisions?

Decisions he supported

His stance towards the steps taken in education is clear: "The government opened the middle tier of the imam hatip schools; it solved the headscarf problem in imam hatip middle schools and high schools." And on the decision to open separate prayer rooms for female and male students in schools he utters a direct word of congratulation:

"When they resolved the headscarf issue earlier, I said that I congratulated the government on that decision, on that success; and I congratulate them for this decision too."

In his speech of 27 August 2013, the answer he gave when asked about the withdrawal of Türk Hava Kurumu's authority to collect sacrificial hides is likewise without hesitation: "I consider this decision taken by the government a good one. In any case it is a correct decision."

Gezi and 17-25 December

In two critical events he stood not against the government but beside it. He reads the 2013 Gezi events as an uprising stirred up simultaneously in different provinces and as an attempt against the government:

"In the past they drove the tanks into the streets; now they drive the people into the streets."

The word he uses for the operation of 17-25 December 2013 is directly "coup":

"The Cemaat carried out the 17-25 December operation against the government. I saw it as a coup. I said this is a coup, and I condemned the Cemaat."

The man said to be an enemy of the government stands with the government in both of the attempts that targeted the government.

The Ensar Foundation example

He also opposed an entire foundation being targeted over a single abuse case. Objecting to the wholesale incrimination of an institution seen as close to the government fits the description of "hostility" in no way whatsoever. His standard here is the same standard he defends in the accusations levelled at himself:

"Some people may do wrong things. To attribute this to an entire foundation would be slander, it would be injustice."

And the criticisms?

They exist and have not been hidden. He found some policies wrong and said so openly. The point the claim skips is that these criticisms were made not out of political rivalry but issue by issue. When he was told that he was "an enemy of the AK Party", this was his answer:

"Why would I be an enemy, where did this talk come from? I only call a wrong a wrong, I am no enemy of one who prays. … There are matters on which we have criticised the AK Party up to today, and there are matters we have appreciated. We are not an opposition party. We set out our view in the name of Islam."

Why do we say "Partly true"?

We could have said "Unfounded"; it would even have been technically defensible, because what is there is not a hostility but a practice of assessment. But that would have meant hiding something from the reader: the criticisms really were made, they are on record, and some of them are harsh. A text that ignores this makes everything else the site says suspect as well in the eyes of a reader who has listened to the first recording.

That is why the label is "Partly true". The part that is true is the existence of the criticism. The part that is false is calling that criticism hostility. The criterion that marks the difference is simple: if both "you did wrong" and "I congratulate you" can be said to the same address, then what is there is not enmity but assessment.

The Ensar Foundation answer quoted above has itself been distorted; the story of that headline is under a separate title: The "He defended the abuse at the Ensar Foundation" claim.