During President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's inauguration, the Turkish Parliament set the stage for a minor scandal - a small group of Republican People's Party (CHP) deputies wanted to address the General Assembly prior to the oath. Speaker Cemil Çiçek responded by reminding the parliamentarians that Parliament had convened for a symbolic event and noted that the presidential oath was the only item on the General Assembly's agenda.Any contradictory motions, Çiçek said, would not live up to the institution's standards and turned down the request. A number of CHP deputies then rushed to the podium while a minority whip, waving a copy of the parliamentary code of conduct proceeded to scream at the speaker - which he threw at the podium after learning that the meeting would continue. Later, the entire Republican caucus left the General Assembly hall.The incident described above became the target of negative criticism from columnists and commentators, including those who share the main opposition's party ideology. Obviously, everyone has a right to question the quality of Turkey's democracy - and for good reason - but the country's political culture, which came into being over many decades, requires due respect to be shown to official ceremonies. Unfortunately, the CHP, a political party deeply rooted in this tradition, prefers to behave like spoiled children.In the face of negative responses, members of the opposition suggested, to no avail, that the incident had been entirely spontaneous and claimed to have had no knowledge of such a protest. It had been clear all along that such an action would have serious consequences and the speaker would not tolerate this kind of behavior. It was comical to see a grown man rush to the podium, code of conduct in hand to scream at the speaker of Parliament, to argue that he got emotional.The major scandal, however, did not take place until later when CHP Chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroglu not only defended but also endorsed the behavior of his colleagues at Parliament.According to the main opposition leader, the spectacle was an act of self-defense. He suggested that people had a right to take action against an assault and said that the situation at hand was no different. Simply put, Kılıçdaroglu suggested that Erdogan's victory was an attack that legitimized all forms of resistance against him.At this point, it would be helpful to pose a question and shed some light on the CHP's so-called new opposition strategy: whom did Erdogan attack by becoming the nation's president?Obviously, the CHP chairman could not claim that the election results hurt the people, since Erdogan won 51.8 percent of the vote to become president. Unless he is willing to posit that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) base falls outside the "real" people, Kılıçdaroglu has to find a way to live with the majority's decision. As such, the main opposition leader effectively argues that the Erdogan presidency represents an attack on democracy and the rule of law - because after the election, when he was both president-elect and prime minister, he did not resign from his prime ministerial post and served an additional 13 days. Let us recall, of course, that President Ahmet Necdet Sezer remained president for two months after his term ended in May 2007 with no objections. But the main point is that winning the race alone does not mean that the contender assumes the new position, which the CHP's jurists surely know. Instead, the election results ought to appear in the Official Gazette, in response to which the winner takes an oath to assume office.As such, the main opposition party sought to turn a nonproblem into a source of conflict. Attempting to aggravate his challenge, Kılıçdaroglu announced that he refused to meet with Erdogan and at the Victory Day reception, took his seat right before Erdogan could extend his hand to the opposition leader. This attitude, a blend of crudeness and helplessness, indicates that the CHP leadership offers little more than shame to their base.