For the last couple of days, I"ve been underlining this with its reasons: the "strengthening", "expanding fields" and "political action" phase in the story of the Gülen-led group had gained acceleration in the 2000s.
This phase had two stages in itself.
At the first stage, the Gülen-led group had stayed within the borders of the law, or at least within the legitimacy borders. What was dominant was their members" movements within the frame of "new judiciary reflex", rather than the group"s collective and speculative action. The Ergenekon judiciary process, while gravitating towards the coup preparations and the military and civil elements within this frame, had activated a sanction mechanism and started to have an important function in the direction of democratization.
Of course, this situation wasn"t showing that the Ergenekon investigation and case had been conducted under ideal law conditions and without a mistake or violation. In a similar way, as it has come into the light already, the roles played by the group members in the front as an individual, cannot get rid of certain preparations of the decision centers of the Gülen-led group and the fact that they are advancing within the frame of certain plans.
Though, as an essential foundation, it was in the direction of "democratization".
It is necessary to mention that from the point of AK Party and the Gülen-led group, the pursuit of democratization, rather than stating a principal situation, was presenting itself in front of us as an attitude that was adopted by them against the pressure and threat they were exposed to. Naturally, the democratization and rulership struggle was being intertwined in Turkey, as well as other countries.
I had written as follows in this matter: "AK Party was paving the way with the special authorized prosecution and court regulations, and advancing with the Gülen-led group"s common structure and members along with other judges and prosecutors. This due, until 2010, in the period when everything stayed within the borders of the law in an important scale, they had played an indicator role during Turkey"s civilizing and facing its past period. However, from the point of the Gülen-led group, the struggle wasn"t only consisting of resistance and answer "within the frame of law"….
The second stage in the Gülen-led group"s story is about exceeding the legitimacy and legal limits. After a certain point, the power that struggles in the state, had stopped actualizing its struggle around democratization policies and law principles, and rather started to operate them in order to increase its power with arbitrariness, and even cheated to settle their accounts, and used the state power it had within this frame.
In this sense, 2010 was a critical date.
The "close collaboration", which started in 2007, between political rulership and the Gülen-led group, had shaken up in 2010, when the Gülen-led group had entered in between democratization moves, and had captured great staff and control at HSYK and high judiciary by abusing the move; thus, the Gülen-led group"s "collective action attack" had started.
The intransitive quintet stage had begun to take shape in this way. Police officers, prosecutors and courts had formed a bloc for an out-of-state hierarchy in HSYK and the high juridical. Judiciary moves and counters had rejoined with their paving the way and getting results – opportunism with a complete look in the sense of legitimacy. When the media power and activity, which paved the way for the creation of public opinion, is added on top of it, then the wheel would be completed and closed.
During those days, the political rulership had seen this situation to some extent and had become annoyed by it. However, they were unable to reach the point of taking necessary precautions. The claims that "some minister and Gülen-led group members are concentrated in certain places", was being met by "whoever puts his/her forehead on the kowtow won"t cause harm" words of the Prime Minister. However, this situation didn"t necessarily state that the Prime Minister wasn"t annoyed. Thus, it was being said that, when candidates were being specified, Tayyip Erdogan had made the biggest elimination.
Zekeriya Öz"s and Ali Fuat Yilmazer"s liquidation, just before the 2011 elections with the reason that they had acted arbitrarily and damaged the political rulership, was another example. The strategy of the Gülen-led group, which deepened its power under these conditions and changed its action style, had started to take shape and distance step by step.
This strategy had three aspects.
1. Liquidation and expanding area policies:
The expansiveness move from universities to judiciary, from courthouse to finance and military, was being operated with liquidation policy. For example, with cases like Ergenekon and Espionage, the process of liquidation within the army and a possible staff period had been started.
2. Hegemony policies:
The Gülen-led group had started to scratch the awareness against it and chose the way of punishing. In this matter, a mechanism, which includes elements like creating "political righteousness" pressure, if not pursuing, wiretapping or threatening with being an Ergenekon member, had been formed.
Hanefi Avci, Ahmet Sik and Nedim Sener had become the symbols of this justice and law-seizing attempts. The pursuit of hegemony had also steered towards law-security units and security policies.
The Minister of Internal Affairs of that period, Besir Atalay, MIT Undersecretary Hakan Fidan and the Public Security Undersecretary of that period, Murat Özçelik, who had become aware of the Gülen-led group"s staff operations and who stood against the hawk politicians that helped make security units prominent politically, had become targets. Within this frame, security policies, power and language had started to transform into existence tools in the Gülen-led group"s struggle. The MIT crisis, Büsra Ersanli, Ragip Zarakol"s arrest and KCK operations had become symbols of this situation.
3. Substitution policies:
We can define this also as some kind of becoming a state period. As the Gülen-led group grew stronger and as their partners" benefits started to require, the group had started to produce alternative politics in various matters, which includes foreign policy, Kurdish policy and struggle with drugs and mafia.
They were carrying this out with the help of their staff, and also with the same personnel they were trying to affect the government"s policies and if need be, to sabotage. The MIT Crisis on February 7 was the result of the Gülen-led group"s, the hegemony"s and Substitution policies.
After the February 2012 crisis, the awareness against these policies had risen, and massive liquidations were made within the police. The Special Authorized Court House and Prosecutor were shut down. Precautions were made at the Ministries. The Gulen-led groups" main vein had been the schoolrooms, and hands had been laid over them.
Besides, in the case that the Prime Minister took strong precaution in this period, it"s clear that this had occurred in the middle of the Gulen-led group"s deadly move after December 17 : people had had enough with Ergenekon and similar processes.
University laws, the HSYK law, appointments, liquidations and judiciary investigation are important, for they carry heavy, authoritative results.
Of course, there are sundry details to this story…
For now, let"s put a period at the end; however, this will soon be penned for a book.