How to Save Turkey's Economy?

Dear friends, I have shared my thoughts on the economy with you here many times. In fact, it is not a secret what should be done and what should not be done for an economy to be good. However, this time I would like to approach it from a different perspective. First of all, in order to understand the economy, it is necessary to understand the concept of complexity. Every system is in an evolution from simple to complex. As the degree of complexity increases in the system, interdependence develops between the parts of the system and a situation of "sensitive dependence on the initial state", also known as the "butterfly effect", emerges. In other words, a small change in the initial state leads to unpredictable results. In the simplest terms, complexity theory can be expressed in this way. The use of this theory in the field of social sciences in a methodological sense is relatively new.

In the film "Asiye Nasıl Kurtulur?", one of the beautiful films of Turkish Cinema, the possibility of changing the life of a woman who falls into a bad path is questioned. Each time, one/several of the initial inputs are changed and an answer to the question "could the result have been different?" is sought. However, even if the result changes, it does not change in the desired direction. The main problem here is that it is not possible to control all inputs. The economy as a complex system is like this. Each time, in order to save the economy of a country in crisis, austerity measures, changes in monetary and fiscal policies, and efforts to find solutions that include only one dimension of the problem under the name of "reform" come to the agenda. Unfortunately, the economy cannot be saved just as Asiye could not be saved.

The economy cannot be handled independently of the society in which it is shaped, the governance structure of the society, politics and education. When we try to handle it in this way, we come across a huge corpus. Although almost all economists explain that the problems of the Turkish economy are basically structural and that it is not possible to achieve success without structural reforms, the concept of "structural reforms" can never be filled in. The esteemed economist Mahfi Eğilmez gives the example of Atatürk's revolutions in his explanations of "structural reform" in which he emphasises social transformation. Although some economists do not accept this, structural reforms should precisely target social transformation. In this sense, Atatürk's revolutions are historically and ontologically very good examples of the "structural reforms" necessary for the solution of the economic problems we face today.

The problem is that the realisation of a social transformation cannot be achieved by changing a few economic inputs and making radical changes in monetary and fiscal policies. When you take a tonne of water from a dirty pool, purify it, clean it and then return it to the pool, you are left with a meaningless cost and effort. What needs to be done is to drain, clean and refill the pool and take measures to prevent re-pollution. Of course, this process is a process of decision-making and implementation. Therefore, in order to achieve a social transformation, it is first necessary to recognise that there is a social problem.

In order to implement a comprehensive public policy, the political institution, which is authorised and responsible for the decision-making stage in the policy process, must first change. It is not easy to solve this problem without understanding how politics has moved away from the example of Hz. Ömer using a separate candle for state business and a separate candle for his own business. The historical roots of this problem cannot be ignored. How is it that a ruler in Scandinavian countries is the servant of the people, while in Turkey he becomes the master of the people? Why is it normal in Turkey for politicians and administrators to utilise public resources as they wish, while in Germany and the UK their expenditures are under control? In order to reform politics, these questions must first be answered.

Correcting politics is both the first step and the most difficult step. Public opinion must put pressure on politics. It is important that pressure groups (Civil Society Organisations, Professional Organisations, etc.) express their demands from politics in front of the public and direct public opinion. However, if politics has chosen to spend all its energy on protecting its position, the state turns into an apparatus of repression and suppresses all voices that politics does not want. The biggest betrayal that politics can make to a country is when it chooses to silence the demands directed against it. Because after that stage, the possibility for the system to reproduce, improve and develop itself disappears. It is meaningless to discuss the economy after that stage.

For this reason, the mechanisms that control politics must be in good and effective working order. The most important of these mechanisms is the judiciary. If politics in a country has the audacity to change the fair functioning of the judiciary, it is no longer possible to expect politics to act in good faith. After this stage, the right of the people to resist against a bad ruler becomes an issue that has been discussed historically in political science. If politics can reconcile its existence with the welfare of the country before this stage is reached, the first thing to be done is tax reform. Unless the tax system ensures that every citizen is aware of every cent of the tax he/she pays, the area of arbitrariness of politics expands. In order for the people to embrace the right to budget, which is a dimension of the right to vote and be elected, they must be aware of the taxes they pay. The way to achieve this is to ensure that direct taxes are higher than indirect taxes.

The second important stage for the future of the economy is education. Education should not be turned into the playground or ideological field of politics. As education moves away from scientific education in line with the requirements of the age, the possibility of innovative ideas, merit staff and value-added production required by the economy decreases, and a rapid tendency towards a consumer society begins. If the political power bases education on superstitions and beliefs, far from scientific facts, there will be no economy and no country in that country whose future will be discussed after a while.

The Minister of National Education of a country is the person responsible to the country for the implementation of education policies in that country. In fact, in a parliamentary system, this responsibility lies with the parliament representing the people, but in the current situation in Turkey, all ministers are responsible to the President of the Republic. If the Minister of National Education uses the strange term "state funding" for teachers, the main element of the education system, and can continue to sit in his seat, it means that there are things that need to be discussed before the economy in this country. The state does not fund public officials, it employs them and pays their wages.

Citizenship awareness and education policies begin to yield their results over a long period of time. As society begins to evolve towards a production-based form of organisation, the formation of politics also begins to transform and change. As politics gets better, public policy processes function more accurately and decisions that are contrary to scientific facts and prioritise personal interests are gradually removed from the political agenda of society. It may take decades for all of this to be established in society in such a way as to reproduce itself. In the meantime, however, law and democracy, which are the subjects of structural reforms, will begin to function spontaneously. As long as there is a political institution that truly cares about the future of the country.

Any economic reform package without the above-mentioned steps is no different from adding new patches to a patchwork. For example, it is called saving in the public sector, and token measures are taken without touching serious expenditure items. Instead of taxing those who earn a lot, the entire population is asked to take on the wreckage for which they are not responsible. In the last period of the Ottoman Empire, the price of building palaces with the debts borrowed from European states was paid in blood in the War of Independence. As long as we do not understand this, we will keep saying "what will happen to this economy".