What Does the Economy Have to Do with Me?

Throughout history, the fundamental element in the development of popular sovereignty has been the control of the people over power. This control has progressed in the direction of developing the right of those who pay taxes to have a say over those who use them. With the emergence of state societies on the historical scene (around 3500 BC), a tendency towards centralisation of state administration became apparent.

We can say that the first limits of this trend were drawn with the Magna Carta (1215). For this reason, regardless of its content, the Magna Carta is considered the beginning of constitutional texts that limit sovereign power.

From there, the process of transition to popular sovereignty gained momentum with the emergence of nation-states in Europe in the 17th century. An important dimension of this is that, in addition to limiting the political power of the state, the economic autonomy of the people is defined and recognised in relation to the political power of the state. The counterpart of this in writing is the concept of civil society. As civil society developed, popular sovereignty developed, and as popular sovereignty developed, the concept of democracy developed by incorporating a new set of values into its conceptual content.

The most important dimension of popular sovereignty is the concept of the ‘budgetary right,’ which requires that citizens who pay taxes to the political superstructure called the state have a say in how those taxes are used. Although the forms of representation of sovereignty may change, the importance of the people's budgetary right in democracies remains unchanged. In other words, the recognition of the budgetary right is the indispensable foundation of popular sovereignty.

The level of development of a democracy is inversely proportional to the ability of those in power to do whatever they want without question. The greater the people's control over power, the more developed democracy is considered to be in that country. The source of this control is the people's budgetary rights. The more institutionalised the mechanisms that provide this control, the more developed popular sovereignty and democracy are.

In forms of government that accept popular sovereignty and democracy, the tax-paying people expect the ruling power to act in accordance with the law, to take care to remain within the limits set for it, and to constantly improve the provision of public services. A government that fails to develop policies to achieve this is replaced by the people through elections. At its core, there is a clear relationship between taxes and public service expectations, which stems from the people's right to the budget.

In developed democracies, the people are clearly aware of the taxes they pay and have the consciousness to question how they are spent. For this reason, the rate of indirect taxes is low in these countries. This is because indirect taxes are not only unfair, but also generally unrecognised by those who pay them. In these countries, the political power governing the state has a responsibility to be accountable to its citizens. It knows that if it fails to do so, it will pay the price.

The state is the highest political organisation established on the basis of the sovereignty of a people over a specific piece of land. Insufficient institutionalisation within this organisation (the absence of the rule of law and democracy with all its rules) can lead to different segments of the organisation prioritising their own interests.

For example, in such a country, the legislative body representing the people may enact laws that grant them privileges disproportionate to the economic power of the state. Although it may sound absurd, they may consider it their right to obtain a series of privileges, such as privileged retirement, high salaries, and free services, simply by serving as members of the legislature for a term.

Even more dangerous is when the executive branch gains the power to control the legislature. In that case, the privileges gained by becoming a member of the legislative assembly would turn into an unethical bribe to cover up the corruption of political powers. In countries with developed democracies, serious measures to prevent the legislature from falling under the control of the executive branch are constitutionally guaranteed. A bicameral parliament is an effective example of this. The parliament's power to oversee the executive branch puts pressure on the executive to stay within constitutional limits.

The most important responsibility of the legislative assembly is to represent the budgetary right, which is the most important element of popular sovereignty. For this reason, the annual debate and vote on budget laws is a concrete manifestation of the exercise of the right to represent the budgetary right.

Budget laws are policy documents that determine how much tax the people will pay, how it will be collected, and how much of this resource will be allocated where. It is possible to clearly see the policy preferences of political powers in budget laws. Moreover, budget laws are not kept secret from the people. Generally, all sessions are open to the public. In our country, the discussions on this law are also broadcast live on state television.

However, it is difficult to say that this law, which concerns the exercise of one of the most important rights of the people, receives the necessary and sufficient attention. The people, who do not know how much tax they pay (when and how much), have become accustomed to thinking (or being made to think) that they have no choice but to be grateful for the services that the ‘state father’ will bestow upon them.

The poor state of an economy is an important indicator of the structure of politics in that country. If economic problems in a country do not show signs of improvement in the long term, then this must be seen as a failure of politics. One of the most important indicators of this failure is the dysfunction and imbalance of the tax system. If the budget deficit and interest payments are increasing and, in contrast, there is no talk of austerity in the public sector, the solution for a failed political regime is to raise taxes.

Even the political choices made while raising taxes say a lot. Taxing wealth can make the government appear vulnerable to scrutiny. This is because the public's awareness of paying taxes is the last thing a failed political regime wants. Therefore, the preference is usually to increase indirect taxes (those that the public does not notice). This leads to a two-fold deterioration: purchasing power declines among broad segments of the population (wage earners and pensioners), and income inequality increases. The growth of income inequality is a factor that negatively affects social welfare and peace.

Up to this point, I have chosen to provide general information in order to understand the situation. When it comes to Turkey, I am sure everyone has something to say. However, I would like to make a few suggestions for solving Turkey's economic problems, which will never be accepted by the political authorities but which will make the people aware of their right to the budget and ensure that they do not surrender their sovereignty to anyone. Of course, these are open to political debate.

1. All guaranteed payment PPP (public-private partnership) projects should be abandoned as soon as possible.

2. Parliamentary salaries should be indexed to a certain multiple of the minimum wage. Salaries and benefits should be tied to specific budget implementation conditions. Constitutional limits should be imposed on legislation that grants privileges to the legislature.

3. Practices that turn the public personnel system into a patchwork quilt and disrupt labour peace should be abandoned. Education and merit should be the basis for remuneration in the public sector.

4. The rental formula for public buildings should be abandoned immediately.

5. The share of indirect taxes in total tax revenues should be reduced to below 30%.

6. The practice of allocating vehicles to ministers and other senior officials in the public sector should be abolished immediately. The number of official vehicles in the public sector should be reduced by 80% and leases should be terminated.

7. The tender law should be revised in line with EU standards. (This should not be interpreted as me defending the EU.)

8. Institutions and organisations that are of no benefit to the country should be evaluated and, if necessary, closed down or their staff numbers reduced. If necessary, the entire system should be reviewed and a fair regime should be adopted. It should not be forgotten that the country's resources are formed from the taxes paid by its citizens.

9. Public officials should be prohibited from receiving additional payments such as allowances or salaries from different sources for any reason and under any name.

10. Railway investment should be prioritised in the country's transport system.

11. A progressive tax on housing should be introduced. Those who own one house should not pay the same tax as those who own ten houses.

These are the things that come to mind at first. I am sure that everyone has complaints and things that make them sad for their country. For these to be implemented, everyone must first be aware of popular sovereignty based on the right to a budget. Otherwise, we will be grateful for having soup today and bread tomorrow. Remember, a politician is successful when they come to power with a specific political vision, implement their policies, and improve the well-being of the people. Saying, ‘What does the economy have to do with me?’ will not protect you from its negative effects…