Is the electoral system right in Turkey?

Do you know the story of crossing the line? 

You know, the famous story: 

In the 19th century, Delacroix, a French painter, opened a painting exhibition in Paris. While visiting the exhibition, he notices a man talking to himself in front of a painting of a great knight. When he approached him with curiosity, he heard the man lamenting to himself that this was not the way to go and asked him; what is this you say is not the way to go, sir? The man says, "The knuckles of this boot can't be like this, sir," and continues to whine in a pedantic manner. When Delacroix asks the man how he knows this, he gets the answer "I am a shoemaker for forty years, I sew boots". Delacroix immediately brought his canvas and paints and corrected the painting as the shoemaker had described. 

But when the shoemaker tried to mention the trousers, Delacroix couldn't stand the shoemaker's pedantic attitude and said, "Sir, you are a shoemaker, please don't go beyond the boot. 

This is the story of this meaningful saying. This saying is meaningful because what really happens to us is because of shoemakers who step out of line.

In my article the other day, I said that I had my own ideas about the election method. Since the subject of that article was not elections, I said that I would write about my ideas on this subject later. I wanted to talk about my ideas on this subject today without taking too much time off.

We call it merit, in fact it is a word that has entered our language from Arabic, it comes from being worthy, it is a word related to fitting. Qualified, suitable. I think the meaning we use does not fit exactly, that is, as a concept. It seems to me that this word has a little less meaning than it should have. It may be important that the job suits the person doing it, but what is actually understood by the word merit is that the one who knows the job should do it. Competent, i.e. appropriate, doesn't seem to be the right word either. According to what? 

What I understand by merit is that the work should be entrusted to someone who knows. Knowledge should take precedence over merit. That's why I wish it was a term related to knowledge. 

Of course, merit also means a little bit of experience, in Turkish, being tried and tested. 

Maybe linguists will think about this and one day come up with a more appropriate term for "merit", perhaps something similar to "a knower", which is related to "being knowledgeable" and "the one who claims to know has been tested".

Of course, this is not about grammar, this is just my own reaction to the fact that there are so many words in our language that are borrowed from Arabic, Persian or Western languages. 

It is just a reaction to the idleness I have observed in recent years in terms of simplifying the language. 

There is nothing much to do, to be honest, sometimes I use whatever word comes to my mind at that moment for a concept I want to express, in fact, when I think about it, I can find a more appropriate Turkish word, but usually we all speak with whatever words come to our minds at that moment for the concept I want to express at that moment. 

And most of the time there really is no Turkish word for that concept. Still, I think we should be careful to use Turkish words as much as possible. Even now, more than half of the words I use in these sentences are foreign words.

Anyway, since our topic is the election method, let's talk about what I have in mind.

I started with crossing the line and merit because these ideas come to the fore in the selection method I have in mind.

Everyone gets to know the people around them much better for the things they are knowledgeable about, for the things they are interested in, for the work they do as a profession, where they earn money and make a living. 

In elections, especially in parliamentary and presidential elections, when we citizens cast our votes, we are actually electing deputies who represent us. 

But due to the meaningless rules in the electoral law, we don't actually know these MPs we elect. 

They are not our proxies. They are the ones that the party leaders have selected and put on the lists and imposed on us at the time of the elections, saying, "Here, choose these people." In fact, this has long been criticized. 

In fact, this issue has been criticized for a long time, but those who hold the power do not take any action on this issue because this is the only way they gain power. This issue always remains in words.

Yes, especially in small cities of Anatolia, the names included in the list can be people who are well-known in their neighborhood and have potential votes. 

In other words, care is taken to make sure that the people who are put on the list are known in their surroundings in any case. 

But especially in big cities, the only way to get on the lists is to be someone the chairman knows and prefers. 

There is no school for this job. Graduates of faculties of political science can reach a certain position in state cadres, but you don't need to study at a special school for politics. Anyone can become a politician. As long as they have the necessary relationships through the right channels. 

Politics has become a profession for some. However, those positions are service positions. 

In our country, for some people, politics has become a way of making a living.

Well, if you ask me a little more clearly what I mean, I am not sure what I am thinking either.

But one thing I am sure of is that this is a sociological issue. It's like a play on a big stage. 

Some people distribute pasta and bulgur and get votes in return. Or there are even those who can buy votes for two sacks of coal in this country.

Some people are able to dominate a certain group and it is as if the votes are given to whoever the network wants. There are even people who enter the voting room with a rope, and there are voters in this country who measure the end of the ballot paper with a rope and put a stamp on it to indicate which party to vote for.

I don't want to get into religious issues at all, but this country has seen propaganda even in mosques. There were even those who offered a place next to the prophet in heaven in exchange for votes.

You can say that these methods are singular events for a very small number of people. Maybe they don't really have a significant impact on the votes cast. 

Democracy is the best election method that humanity can think of in our age. Whoever the majority wants rules the country. There is nothing wrong with that, but I don't like the shenanigans in elections. It seems to me that it is not fair that people are party loyalists like they are team players.

So what do you propose, how do you want it to be? 

As important as merit is in state administration, maybe the merit of the voters who elect these cadres is just as important. I don't know, maybe it would be useful to overhaul the electoral system according to merit principles.

It seems to me that at least a cadre of delegates could be introduced. For example, if three delegates were elected from each neighborhood and those delegates elected the MPs! Or if delegates were elected on the basis of professional organizations. For example, if housewives in each neighborhood elect three delegates among themselves, and those three housewives vote to elect whoever they want as an MP from that constituency. If every fifty or sixty people elect three delegates each according to their profession, their environment, the people they know, and these delegates elect the MPs at the next stage.

In fact, if necessary, a person could vote for delegates for his/her profession, vote for delegates for his/her neighborhood, whatever other organization he/she is a member of, he/she could also participate in the delegate elections from that organization.

Then, if higher management positions were elected according to the votes of the delegates.

As I said, I am not sure about this myself. I am just doing brain gymnastics.

Even when they say let's have a referendum on any issue, some objections are immediately raised. They say there cannot be a referendum on basic human rights. Yes, those who raise such objections are right. There cannot be a referendum on human rights. 

But why not? Can't the public's wisdom be trusted? Is that why not? What do you mean, what the majority of the society says is right?

Since it is said that referendums cannot be held on every issue, these objectors think that the choice of the society is not right on some issues. 

Then why do they allow the same society to choose the country's government? In my opinion, if the consensus of the society is not appropriate on some issues, then the selection of administrative staff is one such issue. Perhaps it is a more correct method to have a connoisseur select the administrative staff.

Something similar to this is practiced in America today. In the US, voters do not directly elect the president and vice president. The votes cast in presidential elections are for members of the electoral college of the states. These electoral college members elect the president and vice president through a second election.

I think this is something to think about. 

Personally, I am very tired of the shenanigans in every election, the hunt for voters, the lies told to win hearts and minds, the votes sold for pasta and bulgur, the empty promises of politicians and the unconscious voting.

OK, let everyone vote, but at least let them choose what they know, let them choose delegates they are sure will make the right choice.

Let the top management staff be elected by those who are a little more familiar with these things.

Mine is just a suggestion. After all, sovereignty belongs to the nation unconditionally.

Love and respect to everyone from Moscow