Hate for the Republic

Sometimes a new concept emerges and it is necessary to find a name for it. I don't know who first thought of the word "republic" and named a form of government?

When I was young, I knew "republic" as a separate word, but for some reason I could not reconcile the "republic" in "president" with the "republic" in "republic". 

To me, "republic" and "president" were two separate words.  

Later I realized that there was a separate word called "republic". 

Don't laugh, I really thought so. When you separate "republic", it had an effect like "-sabile" in my perception.

I don't know, I guess the word "republic" was not used on its own back then. 

Now they even have an alliance!

I looked it up in the dictionary, they wrote that there is a pronunciation called "republic congregation". Back home they say "cümbür cemaat", which means all together, all together in the same sense. 

According to TDK, it means people, and another meaning is community. Like many words in our language, this one is also Arabic.

Actually, I prefer to use the word "unity" instead of "republic". 

The Union of Turkey! I think it would be a better choice than "republic".

TDK has a very detailed definition for "republic":

"A form of government in which the nation holds sovereignty in its own hands and exercises it through the deputies it elects for a certain period of time."

They also show its use in a sentence as "Atatürk is the founder of the Republic of Turkey."

The people were the people or the community, but when explaining the republic, the people became the nation. It started wrong from the very beginning. I explained the difference between the two in one of my previous articles. While the nation refers to the unity of religion, the people refers more to the unity of lineage. The community, on the other hand, is a dry crowd, it does not have any religious or ethnic reference. 

Community! It is actually the most beautiful. Öz Turkish!

Which is correct? Halk, millet, community? Society?

It is written that sovereignty is exercised through deputies elected for certain periods of time. 

If this definition is correct, it means that we are not governed by a republic today!

Because MPs no longer have any relationship with the administration. 

The government is under the responsibility of a single person elected by the citizens. 

In fact, even government is the wrong definition, government is related to the word rule. In a sense, the ministers in the government are only secretariat officials appointed by that one person. None of them has any direct authority. Executive decisions come into effect with a single signature. And that signature has to belong to the President.

MPs, on the other hand, are not the MPs of the nation, they are the ones that the general leaders of the parties they belong to present to the society at election time, in fact impose on them (I exclude independently elected MPs from this).

With the current system of governance, these representatives of the leaders of the political parties, whom we call MPs, have neither any other duties nor any other authority, except to convene in parliament whenever the government feels like it and pass laws by raising and lowering hands.

Those laws are passed through the parliament as a formality, it is still the EXECUTION that prepares them and the parliament is supposedly the LEGISLATURE. There is no way that a law proposal prepared by any MP can be accepted as a law in today's parliament. It is not even possible for the opposition parties to bring any bill to the plenary for discussion.

Those we call MPs are tied at the hip to their party's chairman, because they cannot get on the list in the election period otherwise.

I won't even go into the judiciary. 

This is our separation of powers! 

Separation of powers is important. I hope we will have it one day.

Yes, I have many criticisms, this article would go on and on. So let me go back to the republic.

As always, I thought it would be good to examine the words "republic" and "republic" etymologically, so I opened the etymological dictionary. 

The etymological dictionary defines republic as "accumulation, heap, accumulation, crowd of people". The root word is cem, gathering, community. But what I understand is a dry crowd. In other words, this definition does not make sense as a community that has come together for a specific purpose. A dry crowd!

For the Republic, they define it as "multitude, crowd, people". 

This means that we have attached a very special meaning to the word republic. Etymologically speaking, we can interpret it as the rule of the majority.

The majority does what it wants, how it wants! 

Now this definition does not seem very modern to me either. 

In Nazi Germany they put people in gas chambers and made soap because the majority wanted it. God forbid!

In today's world, yes, those who the majority wants, or as we call them, the person, take over the government for a limited period of time, but now the EXECUTION is done in accordance with the laws and the constitution. We call it 'execution' rather than 'governing'. Governing also means directing a little bit. Execution, on the other hand, is the proper conduct of affairs, so EXECUTION is the correct definition.

The majority only elects who will run the affairs of the country, those in power are no longer just representatives of those who elected them, the elected president is the President of all citizens, those elected are the rulers who run the country in accordance with the wishes and interests of all citizens. They are expected to be so. Because those offices are actually offices of service to all citizens. Normally they should be like that.

Experts of the subject try to explain it with concepts that I constantly confuse with pluralist, not majoritarian, but I will say what I understand: in short, it should be essential that the elected EXECUTION governs the country without any discrimination between citizens.

Is this the case in our country? I will not answer this question now. If you want your own opinion, write it in the comments.

Let's continue with the etymological dictionary. According to available sources, the earliest place where the word "Cumhur" is used is in anonymous stories told anonymously before 1451.  These stories, known as "Feraj Ba'd al-Shidda (FBŞ)", are among the most important prose works of the early Ottoman period. The earliest written version of these stories dates back to 1451. The work was composed of 42 stories in the style of 1001 Nights, but all with a happy ending. The 2017 edition is available in bookstores for those who want it.

The word "republic" came into use later. While the form of government in countries such as Switzerland and the Netherlands was previously called "cümhür", in the 19th century the word "cümhüriyet" came to be preferred.

The oldest written source is Ahmedi Galip Efendi's letters of embassy. Dating back to 1802, these letters contain the following words: "Your mission to the French cümhūr... On the mevālaāt of the French cümhūriye..."

In Şinasi's 1862 articles, it is now referred to as "cümhūriyet".

As a result, the forms of government are very diverse. Once upon a time, I wrote an article about whether the borders between states would disappear one day in the future. Who knows, maybe it will happen one day.

But until that day comes, the form of government of our age is the Republic in many modern countries. It is the same for us.

Because we have proved to the whole world that we will exist independently by waging a war of independence and liberation and by saving our homeland from the enemy with the superior genius of our great leader Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

Everyone, friend and foe alike, should know that this land became our homeland by soaking in blood and hating the Republic is a betrayal of all our ancestors lying shroudless beneath it.

Yes, today, as I wrote above, our current form of government has problems.

The fact that the nation, or more accurately, the citizens, are currently handing over their sovereignty to a single person of their choice is not acceptable in terms of a republic, but this does not mean that the republican form of government is a wrong form of government. This mistake will be corrected as soon as possible and a system of government where citizens are truly sovereign will be established.

In the meantime, let those who hate the republic be consumed by their own hatred. They themselves do not know what they are saying and what they want. Maybe one day they will understand what a republic is.

I say let them, because as I have always said, this nation is wise. In other words, they have strong intuition. They know what is right and what is wrong. When the time comes, it knows how to teach arrogant people a lesson and make the right choice. It knows very well that it is the decision maker.

Most importantly, he will not hand over his sovereignty to anyone, no matter who he is. Because he has tasted sovereignty!

Love and regards to everyone from Moscow.