The relationship between the government and the opposition has experienced at least two ruptures since 2002. The first rupture took place when the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) came to power - something that political actors at home and abroad deemed completely out of reach in the wake of the Feb. 28 process. Around the same time, it became clear that the opposition was unable to read the post-2002 situation and, by extension, appeared indecisive about its relationship with the government. Trying to escape this confusion, they found themselves trapped inside the vicious cycle of an imagined dichotomy between religious reactionaries and secularism. Another rupture occurred when the military issued the April 27 memorandum ahead of the 2007 presidential election, and the government's response left domestic and international proponents of military intervention disappointed.A quick look back at the primary rupture would reveal how the childish and outdated discourse of complaining took over the opposition's entire platform. Although the opposition's complaints appeared to represent an appeal to the people, their actual concern was to address the Kemalist elite's concerns as well as to reach out to certain elements of the guardianship regime. With the military, the judiciary, big business, the media and global stakeholders expressing their complaints, the opposition found itself at a loss for words. What needed to be done, they thought, has already been done in 1997. The fact that the military failed to prevent the 2002 revolution alone was cause for concern - which is exactly why the April 27 memorandum took place.The discourse of complaining did not disappear after the second rupture either. With the military forced out of the picture, the judiciary stepped in and in the following year, sought to shut down the ruling party. The outcome was no different, of course, as the dream of engineering the political landscape ended in tears. And it was after the 2010 constitutional referendum when the forced normalization of the guardianship regime rendered the discourse of complaint obsolete. Still, the opposition refused to stop complaining.Ten consecutive election victories for the AK Party led to the emergence of a proto-dominant party in Turkish politics. If the party wins the June 2015 general election, it will qualify as a proper dominant party. The situation at hand indicates that the opposition must escape the vicious cycle of a zero-sum game and strive to develop a constructive style of politics. It goes without saying that the opposition cannot be taken seriously by engaging in an endless act of complaining.How could the opposition be unaware of this disadvantage? And how can they not give up this style of politics which merely represents a complete waste of time? Nothing could be more normal, of course, than the opposition complaining about government policy. Letting complaints hijack one's entire platform, however, effectively represents the death of politics.Since the Dec. 17 operation, we witnessed a complete takeover of political discourse by complaints. The opposition assumed the role of an unquestioning consumer of the government's domestic and international adversaries. At this point, nothing suggests that this attitude will change in the mid-term.In the face of mounting complaints, political identities melt into air. Meanwhile, the government, though spending an annoying amount of time on such issues, consolidates its dominant position - which, in turn, becomes a key factor keeping the AK Party in power. The dominant party system will remain intact as long as the ruling party concentrates on concrete proposals and a positive approach.