After the initial harsh municipal police intervention and demolition of a couple of tents inhabited mostly by youth activists at İstanbul’s Gezi Park on the 31st of May, the protests spread like wildfire all over the country. According to data provided by the Ministry of Interior, there have been protests in 79 cities of Turkey (out of 81), and around 2.5 million people participated. On the one hand, the protests clearly had a lasting effect on the Turkey’s politics and global perceptions of Turkey; and on the other, national polls conducted and articles written by pollsters cast “Gezi protestors” as a “minority” with meager actual political impact. Reference to a ‘numeric miniscule’, ‘insignificance’ is a sign of the ‘majoritarian times’ in the political arena of Turkey. Concept of “majority” relies by and large on the “parliamentary majority”. But where does the Grand National Assembly stand as an institution and the parliamentarians as the “representatives of national will” as far as Gezi Protests are concerned? This paper evaluates points of view of the parliamentarians who participated in person to the protests. How do they assess their role as “representatives of the public” in politics, as “official representatives” of both the state and the “people”? Were they (and are they still) a part of the “disenchanted”, as political envoys expressing the ‘public view’, or do Gezi Protests signify their ‘failure’ as politicians as the public disappointment with politics find its ultimate translation in street protests? Was “Gezi” a triumph of the ‘oppositional parliamentary politics’, or a consequence of its crisis? As parts of “old politics” (meaning the existing political parties), in what ways do Gezi Protests have significance for fruition of “new politics”? Based on in-depth interviews with the current members of the parliament who took active part in the Gezi Protests, this paper presents both a historical recording of “protesting parliamentarians’ point of view” of “what Gezi was/is” and critical analyses of their personal narrative, of their role as key political agents as protestors themselves. Aims of this research are providing an account of “how it happened” through the eyes of key participating agents and questioning role of the Grand National Assembly as an institution, its members in terms of public representation at this particular juncture/crisis of Turkey’s politics-which currently exudes the buzzwords “ballot box” and “majority’s will”/“people’s will”.