If There Is No Public Interest

Dear friends, I have written on a wide variety of topics to date. I have tried to give you tips on how to view events through the lenses of public policy, the rule of law and democracy. Today, I will try to address a concept that lies at the intersection of all these concepts through the events of our time. This concept also forms the essence of societies' will to live together. In the process of state organisation being crowned with popular sovereignty, the litmus test of what the state administration does right or wrong is undoubtedly the concept of public interest.

When our concept is ‘public interest,’ we enter the common ground of many disciplines. The Dictionary of Public Administration explains public interest as follows: ‘It is the fundamental and general objective of public administration actions and procedures, aimed at protecting the interests of a section or the whole of society. Public administration exists for the public interest. When social interests conflict with individual interests, public administration sides with social interests. Public administration must act within the law for the public interest’.

Of course, it is essential that the public interest directed towards a segment of society does not conflict with the general interests of society. For example, positive discrimination in favour of women and children is in the public interest because it does not harm the general interests of society. Judicial decisions have established that granting mining companies powers that lead to the destruction of nature and using state security forces against the protesting public is not in the public interest. The foundation of law is also the public interest. The fundamental principle in the preparation, enactment and implementation of laws is the protection of the public interest.

As a political organisation, the state exists to provide public services. The state performs public services through its officials. Everyone, from the President at the head of the state to the lowest-level public worker or civil servant, is required to perform duties to provide public services. Public services must necessarily be directed towards the public interest. It is imperative that the public interest is safeguarded in every activity carried out by public officials using public resources. Even a public official such as the President cannot use public property and funds for activities that do not serve the public interest. This point is also reflected in the decisions of the Constitutional Court.

Determining the policies under which public services are provided is the responsibility of the government, which has assumed the task of governing the state for a certain period. However, when determining public policy, the government must, by the nature of the task, consider the public interest at every stage of the public policy process. These are, of course, as they should be. It is possible to encounter practices involving corruption and irregularities, such as public officials pursuing different interests, anywhere in the world. It is even possible for governments to abuse public policy processes by disregarding the public interest in order to protect the interests of capital in certain areas. Of course, the question of whether public policy processes are conducted in the public interest is one that must be examined.

Unfortunately, as there is often no effective mechanism to monitor this, or because the public is not sufficiently informed about government activities, criticism of public policy does not lead to any sanctions outside the political arena. Therefore, in a healthy public policy process, it is essential that relevant sections of society, experts and universities have a say in order to protect the public interest. If the process does not function in this way, it is possible to conclude that public policy does not serve the public interest. If the principle of separation of powers is compromised, it becomes difficult to obtain the expected benefits from judicial oversight.

There are times when social order is sensitive to events. Periods of crisis are times when sensitivity is at its highest. Why does a crisis arise? It arises because the system cannot respond to a rapidly changing situation. This could be a disaster or a social event. It is assumed that the state, as a dynamic political system, has the ability to anticipate all types of crises and take the necessary measures.

Although it is not possible to completely prevent the emergence of crises with unforeseeable social costs, there are very important activities and tasks that governments must carry out to ensure that their effects remain limited.

First, a dynamic risk assessment system must be established. The constantly changing perception of risk and possible outcomes must be assessed dynamically, and the necessary measures must be continuously updated accordingly. However, public resources allocated for disaster management do not produce results that are easily visible to the public. For this reason, governments are reluctant to allocate resources for such crisis situations. In addition, if the cost of the event reaches levels much higher than expected, the government not only pays the price for its mistakes politically, but may also be subject to judicial scrutiny for failing to take necessary measures. This situation is, of course, possible in a state governed by the rule of law where the law is effectively enforced.

If there is no effective crisis and disaster management policy, solving the problems that arise during a crisis usually places a heavier burden on societies, both financially and emotionally. These burdens are not sufficiently questioned by the public due to the conditions imposed by the priorities of the crisis. However, a very important issue has been neglected and overlooked in many dimensions, from the failure to establish an adequate disaster management system to the inefficient use of public resources. For this reason, the concept of public interest forms the backbone of public policy. Restoring lost public interest is both difficult and costly.

No law explicitly accuses ‘failure to consider the public interest’ as a crime. This is because, from the perspective of individuals, acting in accordance with their own personal interests does not constitute a crime, provided that it does not violate the law. The responsibility for considering the public interest lies with the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. From this perspective, the political establishment does not feel obliged to consider the public interest in its decisions. For politicians, lavish promises and populist rhetoric narrow the meaning of the concept of public interest. For this reason, the political mechanism generally tries to distance itself from this concept. They see the concept as a burden.

My main aim in this assessment is to highlight the fallacy of public policy formulated without regard for the public interest and the resulting choices made regarding the use of public resources. Unqualified appointments to positions requiring knowledge and experience, infrastructure facilities costing the state several times their actual value, unnecessary air and land vehicles purchased or leased by the public sector, public resources spent on public officials receiving salaries from several places, and the sacrifice of the country's forests and olive groves for subcontractors cannot be explained in terms of public interest. Especially in a situation where it has been stated that there are no firefighting aircraft due to the cost, the events are truly heartbreaking.

In fact, when we consider everything from the outset, I believe that the 1982 Constitution's prioritisation of the executive over the legislative and judicial branches dealt a heavy blow to the state's memory. This blow made the entire society forget the concept of public interest, which is ingrained in the state's memory. Those in power and politics were already willing to forget this. Today, we are paying for the painful consequences of this forgetfulness with the destruction of public resources and the country's natural structure. Of course, it is a fundamental civic and human duty to expect accountability for the thousands, tens of thousands of lives that have been lost. But if you ask whether there is anyone who can answer this, the knot in our throats caused by the loss of these lives leaves this question unanswered.

I feel compelled to add one final note. The government, which is seeking an opportunity to draft a new constitution to replace the 1982 Constitution, has, in my opinion, lost its credibility on certain issues. While this country has many esteemed constitutional law professors, it may not be my place to speak, but a constitution that prioritises fundamental rights and freedoms, establishes a bicameral parliamentary system, and is strictly bound by the principles listed in Article 2 of the current constitution could be the recipe for salvation from the situation our country finds itself in. However, this cannot be done by the current parliament, but only by a constituent assembly. Otherwise, it could lead to the instrumentalisation of the country's fundamental regulatory text for the possible institutionalisation of an unjust system and the complete removal of the public interest from this text, which would be a matter of life and death for every patriotic Turkish citizen.