My esteemed colleague Ümit İnatçı is right to argue that “a system was established on the basis of the distribution of plunder” in the north of the island...
Yet, when we leave it there the story remains incomplete because the issue is not merely Turkey’s position on the island, or a post-war property regime; it is the internalization, normalization, and even preservation of this system over time… A set of habits and, most importantly, the organization of consent…
Moreover, there hasn’t been any serious rebellion against this colonial order. Perhaps there was during the Annan Plan period but it hit the wall in the south and fell apart.
Yes, this system found acceptance internally as well.
More importantly, even the significant majority of those who opposed it could not remain outside this structure. A picture emerged where even those shouting the loudest retreated when their own boundaries were reached, taking refuge behind the “don’t touch me” line.
For this reason, the issue is no longer merely a debate over a ‘colonial order’; it is also a matter of social ethics…
Ultimately, there was a war, and it ended. Moreover, the ‘ceasefire’ persists; we are living with a frozen conflict. Of course, a life would be established, of course, things would fall into place. However, the structure that has been established is not a life, but a regime of expediency.
There are reactions and periodic outbursts of anger; however, what is missing is a fundamental ethical break from the status quo.
Social opposition occasionally pushes for this break; the campus debate in Karpazia was the most vivid example of this. A shared sense of sensitivity was created. This sensitivity has also found expression in the political opposition. This is no small achievement. Yet, the significance of that goes unrecognized...
Some feel as though the “toy of opposition” has been taken from their hands... Being oppositional has become an identity. If politics had produced results solely through “opposition,” we would be in a very different place today.
***
You don’t have to look far to see how far this system is from democracy, how superficial this state is. It’s enough to look at what Democratic Party Secretary-General Serhat Akpınar told journalist Nazar Erişkin...
The man is supposedly a partner in the ‘government’!
He was reported to the Turkish government when he questioned the government... The Ambassador even threatened him... The man was so fed up, he said, “I’m not running for office again.”
Yet, he’s still sitting in his seat. He goes, raises his hand, and votes on decisions again.... He’s still playing his part, weepingly...
***
Anyhow... Let’s go back to the beginning...
This system persists not only because it’s imposed from above, but also because it’s accepted from below. That’s why the real break must take place not just on the political plane, but in social consciousness.
Now I know some will ask, “which society”, or “who is society.”
Those who raise this question aren’t wrong either...
The issue is: How many people truly want to change this system?
And the even harder question: If this system changes, who will lose what?
This article was originally published on 23.03.2026
Source: ROLES PLAYED, WEEPINGLY
