The old Turkey’s only actor who has changed neither radically nor genuinely, nor has even discussed the change, is the Turkish mainstream media.

For years, the liberal/left discourse in Turkey misconstrued the “identity” debate to describe the “Kurdish question” through the Western-informed lens of the distinction between “good” and “bad.”

It seems that with the PKK’s disarmament these political positions will have to disarm politically.

As the parties take a political-stress-test in the solution process, all of the actors who fail to play a founding-role will have to suffer structural fractures, independently of the survival or success of the process.

A far-right party, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), owes its post-1980 existence to a great extent to the Kurdish issue and the terrorist acts of the PKK.

The last thing Turkey desires should be the entrapment of the solution process similar to that of Kirkuk’s.

The economic transformation in the region will enable effective use of regional resources and ensure sustainable peace and environment of trust.

Erdoğan carried the country away from an undeclared bankruptcy into a great transformation in 10 years.

In 2012 the government introduced numerous changes and established new mechanisms in order to reinforce the constitutional state, resolve judiciary issues, protect and improve human rights and finally strengthen democracy.

Judging from the scene revealed by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), the paradigm has bankrupted and the transition to a new order has already begun since the world of friends and enemies who stood by the tutelage regime for years is totally confused now.

The reshuffling of Turkey's domestic and foreign policy over the last decade has finally led to a solution for Kurds.

The AK Party, as the author of many firsts in the resolution of the Kurdish issue, has taken a huge lead over other parties.

What Russia understands from a political solution is the Kadirov model and what Iran understands from the political solution is a scenario of “forever-negotiation-nihilism” as it is the case in its nuclear program. Is either to propose a realistic political solution to the Syrian crisis?

The discourse over the protest shows more of a tendency for psychological analyses than a political stance. Explanations such as “fear, feeling confined and repressed” do not offer us any political clarification.

A wish for the AK Party to be thrown out of power through undemocratic means is not a stance that can bring about meaningful political change. It’s a psychological reflex from a bygone era.

Unless the emerging picture of the last ten days leave the world of psychological stresses, camouflaged objections and selfish sensitivities behind, and is not transformed into a “clear political” position, it will not leave a long lasting impression in the world of politics except psychological tensions.

If we are seriously to talk about the last two weeks, there is nothing but a huge political inaptitude in front of us.