It is for parliament that a security bill is actually needed.

That is because the atmosphere in parliament is extremely tense.

Tense to such an extent that arguments broke out even during a session concerning Özgecan.

The opposition says “it will resist until death” in regard to the domestic security bill.

The ruling party insists that the bill will pass.

In such circumstances the slightest spark leads to fights.

Chairs can fly and gavels can be banged on someone’s head at any moment.

I wandered around parliament’s corridors after the previous night’s “pitched battle.”

I set up base in the ruling party’s section and visited that of the opposition.

I chatted with parliamentarians.

Everyone is complaining about the existing tension. The parliamentarians are filled with remorse about what occurred.

But it all changes in a flash and you can see parliamentarians busy throwing punches at each other.

I went at an hour when it is not busy. It was so calm that one could be led to think, “Was it in this parliament that a fight broke out.”

But suddenly the assembly hall was in turmoil.

Parliamentarians shot out of their seats like arrows.

Punches and kicks started being thrown.

The scene resembled those seen in Thailand’s parliament.

This is not good.

Because the tensions that exist in parliament seep out onto the streets after a short while.

Fine, the ruling party and opposition have not sat down together until now for work on a new constitution due to differences over freedoms, but is there any point in creating polarization over the security bill?

It would prove beneficial for representatives of the ruling party and opposition, who share the same corridor and sit a few meters apart, to meet.

Let me be honest, I find the powers of detention being granted to civilian authorities and the police to be problematic.

Despite the police forces in the United Kingdom, Germany and France having similar powers.

I have concerns about how a police officer -- who sticks the barrel of his gun into the mouth of his spouse who he is arguing with -- will use this authority. Similar regulations, which were in the security bill when it was first brought to parliament, were weeded out in the committee through the cooperation shown by the ruling party and opposition.

But the regulation concerning the gendarmerie forces in this bill is a reform in itself. I would like to share an anecdote concerning the gendarmerie.

One day I had gone to the minister’s office for a meeting.  An experienced ministerial consultant at the time pointed to a corridor leading to the Gendarmerie General Command and said, “This corridor is used twice. When the new minister takes office the gendarmerie commander will come and wish the minister success. The second time is when the minister uses it to visit the commander when is leaving office.”

During meetings headed by the interior minister in the past, it was not the commander of the Gendarmerie Command who attended but the Chief of General Staff. During sessions of the MGK (National Security Council) the commander of the Gendarmerie Command would sit in front of the minister.

It is also important in terms of pushing back military tutelage that enlistment, assignments and promotions in the gendarmerie are now linked to the Interior Ministry.

Moreover, the shutting down of the Police College and Police Academy and offering retirement to officers due to lack of posts is a sound decision as part of the fight against the parallel structure. (The parallel structure is a term used to denote the Fethullah Gülen-led movement.)

Such measures are necessary to combat the “parallel police,” which prepared reports about the prime minister, under whose orders it was, as the “prime minister of the time” and attempted to carry out a coup.

I am not going to hide behind the cloak of the fight against drugs. But you can’t cover your face and protest in the center of Paris. Just like you won’t be allowed to throw Molotov cocktails in London.

It would help to highlight any articles in the security bill that restrict the freedom of thought, belief and enterprise. I think the criticisms directed against the right to detain and search by the police will be addressed because they are in this context. However, what is there to defend about masks, Molotov cocktails, clubs and metal weapons.

Who does it benefit if we defend those who flung a Molotov cocktail into a public bus that resulted in the death of our daughter Serap?

Based on what kind of reasoning does the MHP (Nationalist Movement Party), which pointed to PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) members with covered faces in Cizre and raised an outcry saying, “Cizre is lawless,” support the masks that PKK members use to hide their faces?

These items are used by [illegal] organizations during protests.

Molotov cocktails are used by the PKK and DHKP-C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front). Defending this falls on the shoulders of the MHP.

Wishy-washiness is fine but not to this extent. You even oppose the resolution process that will end the armed struggle stating that it involves meetings with the PKK but defend the Molotov cocktails used by PKK militants.

During the presidential elections, the opposition had created a “common candidate” alliance. This new alliance is the “common Molotov” alliance.

This will come as sad news to members of the MHP and PKK but even Abdullah Öcalan disapproves of such types of protests. It is a known fact that he said, “That is not my type of warfare” in regard to protests that involve masked faces, barricades and the throwing of Molotov cocktails.

While I was in parliament, I also had the opportunity enquire about the resolution process.

I was told, “There is no progress yet.” No official meetings have taken place between the HDP (Peoples’ Democratic Party) delegation and the government.

Furthermore, the fight in parliament between AK Parti (Justice and Development Party) and HDP parliamentarians doesn’t make any positive contributions to the resolution process but on the contrary forces them to be confrontational.

I watched Pervin Buldan, one of the HDP’s intellectual members, speak. She used sharp and damning language. AK Parti members responded in the same manner. Fine, I will put the “ugly” language used by spokespersons of the CHP (Republican People’s Party) and the MHP to one side, but these other two parties are supposed to be directing the resolution process.

Can a solution be found by assaulting each other?

The failure to develop a “language of resolution” was the greatest misfortune to befall the process in any case. Opting to use the language of war, however, damages the grounds for engaging in dialogue.

These two parties are meant to be advancing a historic project in the shape of the resolution process.

If they succeed in silencing the sounds of guns, these two parties will still need to cooperate to resolve the Kurdish problem and raise Turkey’s democratic standards.

But they won’t be able to do this by banging on their war drums.

The opposition can make use of opportunities arising from parliament’s bylaws to prevent a bill from passing into law in parliament. During Turgut Özal’s tenure, the SHP (Social Democratic Populist Party) strongly opposed the law on “duties and jurisdiction of the police.”

But when it came to many critical laws, compromise was sought among parties and we also witnessed some bills being redrafted.

But it is a stain on parliament’s standing when violence is involved and images of punches being thrown and kicks flying appear.

Just like is often said in such situations: “no offense, but that is not very becoming of it.”