In politics, we tend to focus on external enemies and threats beyond our borders. Yet, our ancient geography teaches us a simple, stark truth: the worm that spoils the quince comes from within the fruit itself.
What truly threatens to dismantle a nation—or a geopolitical axis forged between two fraternal countries—is not the maneuvers of external adversaries, but rather the crises of trust, impulsive outbursts, and shortsighted approaches that we generate internally, swept up in the currents of fleeting political fluctuations. It is time to stop searching for enemies abroad and instead address the “worm” within.In sociology, this is referred to—using a term borrowed from psychology—as “existing through one’s enemy.” It signifies that an individual or a community anchors their identity, motivation, or very existence to the presence of an adversary, sustaining themselves alongside—and in a state of struggle against—that opponent. If an enemy does not exist, you simply invent one. In an era defined by such intense communication, inventing an enemy is remarkably easy. Did someone claim you have a “flaw” (literally, “an eyebrow above your eye”)? Even if they didn’t, it hardly matters: a distorted issue on social media will suffice! You might begin by repudiating your material or moral debts to an old friend; this provides an opportunity to redefine your own principles or “truths.”
A state that cannot derive its values from the history of its own people finds itself—should it be left without an enemy—deprived of a purpose to strive for, or even a friend; for it may have defined its “friends” solely as “the enemies of my enemy.”
Political science suggests that states may require an “other” to sustain their own existence and legitimacy. This is especially true when the history, culture, or ideology upon which a state is built rests on a deeply distorted or haphazard foundation. In such cases, an “other” becomes absolutely essential—to the point that this “other” must be pushed into a state of outright enmity, allowing the state to derive its own—dare I use the word?—ontological existence from that very opposition. Let me mention one more term—one I would avoid using if I had the choice: there is a trajectory that runs from Hegel’s dialectics to contemporary populism, where the cheapest “cement” for papering over internal crises is to declare, in effect, a state of war against even the slightest criticism from those you have come to label as your enemies.In short, the “wolf” that allows states to define their own existence through the presence of enemies resides within them; this existential and political issue arises from an internal deficiency. Yet, almost every state possesses one or more foundational ethnic elements—and ethnicity is never defined by the metric dimensions of skulls, but is instead forged through culture, history, tales, poetry, and song. If this “dough” is kneaded with care, it can also yield the raw material for a friendly hand extended toward one’s neighbors. Whether Shiite, Orthodox, Mahayana, or Samaritan—these distinctions do not inherently render Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or Judaism any more or less “different” in your eyes. There is no ontological reason for a Georgian to be closer or more distant, friendlier or more hostile to you than an Armenian—nor for a Gagauz to be so in relation to a Moldovan, or a Russian in relation to a German. Rather, the impulse to invent such a distinction—and the choice to perceive it as such—stems from the convenience of exploiting an existing enmity between others for one’s own ends; it originates, in other words, from that “internal wolf.”
How, then, can we connect such a metaphorical text to reality? Perhaps we can point to a few concrete phenomena that this metaphorical wolf is able to exploit:1- The mythology of external threats and internal structural blindness: There will always be birds or insects trying to damage the skin of a quince. Yet, as history has shown, taking refuge in this narrative can never mask internal injustice, a lack of economic vision, or institutional decay.
2- Undermining alliances from within is a tactic often chosen because launching an overt external attack on strategic partnerships is difficult; you suddenly begin labeling your traditional partner with various epithets and issuing commands like, “Dismiss this person, send that one away!” This serves to camouflage the “wolves” for a time.
3- The convenience of attributing criticism to external forces: If you face existential troubles for any serious reason, the quickest and easiest way out is to claim, “External powers aligned with you are driving a wedge between us.” But no matter how much you blame the outside, the “wolves” within continue their work.
I fear that these last three points have also failed to ground our argument in reality!
Source: https://www.milliyet.com.tr/yazarlar/hakki-ocal/ayvanin-kurdu-kendinden-olur-7692343
