Politics and Taking Sides

The origin of the word politics, in Arabic “horse care and training, grooming; It comes from the word "state administration, administration (politics)" (Nişanyan, 2022). The two words translated from English to Turkish as "politika" actually have different meanings. “Politics” is exactly the equivalent of “politics” in Turkish. The word "policy", on the other hand, is the equivalent of "policy", which is mostly used to mean a way of governing. For this reason, it would be correct to use the use of the word "policy" only as a synonym for the word "policy". The use of the word "politics" for both politics and politics in the dictionary of the Turkish Language Institution can cause misuse when its English equivalent is considered. The second equivalent of the word politics is the expression "Special view or understanding about the art of arranging and conducting state affairs" (TDK Dictionary). Generally speaking, in terms of its meaning in all languages, it is seen that the word politics is closely and directly related to "state administration". Therefore, it cannot be thought that politics should be carried out independently of the requirements of the state administration in terms of purpose and means. At the very least, it is expected that the primary and apparent aim for a person interested in politics is to increase the welfare of his people by being effective in the administration of the state.

A politician has to ask for votes from the electorate in a system that is authorized to rule through elections. For this reason, it must convince the voters of the success of its administration. It is necessary but not sufficient for the politician who comes to power to act in accordance with the law and to maintain his authority to govern. Management must maintain its legitimacy. Legitimacy is not only achieved by acting in accordance with the law. An app may be legal but not legitimate. The governed must believe that the authority of the rulers is justified. On the basis of legitimacy, the ruler should think about the well-being of the governed, and this should be supported by results as well as his behavior and practices. This conclusion supports legitimacy, depending on the growth of the people's welfare and the expansion of the sphere of individual freedom.

Even if a political power acts in accordance with the law, its legitimacy can be diminished. Of course, it should be noted that the process of making laws is not independent of politics. When legitimacy diminishes, there are two options before the political powers: Either they decide that they cannot use their authority to rule until the end of the term due to the decreased legitimacy, and they go to early elections to seek the support of the people before the deadline, or they insist on using their powers until the end of the term. In the second case, security policies come to the fore and pressures on individual rights and freedoms increase. Increasing pressures further reduce legitimacy and the ruler resorts to new measures to protect his power. This is a vicious circle.

What happens if legitimacy is ultimately lost? Mencius (371-289 BC), one of the thinkers who sought the answer to this question in history, is the most famous among Confucius' students. His non-Latinized name is Meng Tse (Meng Zi). He prefers monarchy to democracy, but also emphasizes the importance of the people. The ruler should work for the good of the people. “It is the right and even the duty of the people to try to dethrone or even kill a ruler who does not work for the good of the people and does not fulfill his duty” (Störig, 2000: 159). According to Jean Jack Rousseau (1712-1778), “power does not create rights, but there is an obligation to obey the legitimate power.” (hukukpolitik.com.tr). Rousseau defends the right to resist oppression, and the condition for exercising this right is the loss of legitimacy.

It is also possible to define legitimacy as the belief in the rightness of authority. From this point of view, one of the tools most used by political powers, and perhaps the most effective, is ideology. Marx defines ideology as "false consciousness". Gramsci, on the other hand, argues that "it is necessary to distinguish between ideologies that are historically organic, necessary for a certain structure, and arbitrary, rationalist (deliberate) ideologies" (Gramsci, 2007: 82). He emphasizes that while ideologies in the first group organize the crowds, those in the second group (arbitrary ideologies) cannot produce anything but individual movements and polemics. To be clear, organic ideologies in the first group emerge as a historical necessity, while arbitrary ideologies appear as effective tools used by political powers to cover up the legitimacy crisis. However, both have psychological effects at the social level. The psychological effect created on society is manifested in the structure of the ideology that does not allow questioning. To some extent, we can compare this to “team support”.

When going to a football match, there is a process in which the individual characteristics of the fans in the stands become indistinct, while the collective behavior comes to the fore. A person who does not swear in his daily life can turn into a person who swears in the crowd. In more extreme cases, he meets a person whom he can meet and have a coffee and chat with at normal time. 

He may adopt an aggressive attitude. It becomes more and more difficult for the individual will to be effective in a community motivated by a sense of support. What we are interested in in this article are two important features of the phenomenon of advocacy. These; It can be listed as 1. Creating a sense of belonging, 2. Disappearance of individual behavior and turning to collective behavior.

The phenomenon of supporter can occur more or less in almost every country, regardless of the level of development. Of course, the domestic law of each country regulates the stage at which the actions of the fans constitute a crime. However, the fact that this phenomenon goes beyond sports competitions brings with it many potential dangers in terms of society. The development of partisan behavior in science, the judiciary and politics corrupts all institutional structures.

The fact that the phenomenon of support is built on political behavior creates a division in the society with the "arbitrary ideology" that is created out of historical reality. However, no one who votes is the enemy of each other. Just as it is a normal phenomenon for a political power that adopts different policies to rule the country in a lost election, what is expected to happen in a won election is the same. It is only expected that the policies to be implemented will differ. Although different, the consequences of policies affect all citizens in the same way. It is important that this fact is perceived very well by both the rulers and the ruled. Otherwise, there will be deterioration in the delivery of public services. The principle of equality in public service disappears. If the policies are successful, the welfare of the country will increase, and the political power will strengthen the possibility of being re-elected. If the political power is not content with just implementing its policies and turns to a movement to change the regime of the country, the fact that it is military or civilian does not change the fact, it is a coup. The submission of the regulations made contrary to the qualifications written in the Constitution to the referendum does not change this result.

The phenomenon of partisanship in politics, as I mentioned above, creates itself with an ideology that is not connected with reality and is fictionalized. These ideologies are often manifested by an emphasis on collective action and shared responsibility. Lack of connection with reality requires belief to come to the fore. This belief may be a religious belief, or it may manifest itself in the form of belief in the collective existence. In developed and democratic countries, there are political parties that define themselves with their religious belief identity. However, in these countries, politicians avoid rhetoric that will create advocacy on the electorate, because they know the consequences. Excessive commitment to beliefs in a society is often an element that supports the phenomenon of advocacy. Beliefs are often a way of accepting the unknown. In underdeveloped societies with a low tradition of democracy, it is more likely to encounter a typology of politicians who seek the source of legitimacy through faith. Because unlike the information society, in such societies, politics turns into an activity carried out as a means of serving the capital rather than the people. In order for the negative consequences of policies to be accepted and not to turn into a loss of legitimacy, two things must be done; 1. The administrators appear before the people with their religious identities, 2. The administrators want the political behavior of the people to be formed through the fiction of advocacy.

There is no need for them in the information society. The information society has the capacity to produce its own knowledge. It is not dependent on the information produced. Since the weight of knowledge in social relations is higher than belief, it is more difficult to divide the society in such societies. The main factor that pushes the individual to remain a part of society is their material interests and the strong belief that they are secured. Civil society is organized and strong. Political behavior of individuals is based on knowledge and individual preferences rather than collective behavior patterns. Policies to be implemented by different political powers as a result of the elections are not colors that are opposite to each other, but different shades of the same color. Since institutionalization is at a high level, the rule of law is not a choice but a "must have" necessity. Democracy is not only the playground of politicians, there is an institutional structure that allows the participation of the people. The task of the leader is simply to ensure harmony. "Superhuman" values ​​are not attributed to the leader. There are institutional control mechanisms to prevent the manager, who has lost his legitimacy, from resorting to pressure to maintain his position.

Societies that cannot be an information society are forced away from reality by the phenomenon of advocacy and forced to accept that they do not know even though they should have known. While doing this, he develops hostility towards those who do not think like him. Political preferences and political attitudes are put forward by supporters rather than based on knowledge. The preferences of the politician on this issue reflect the consequences of not being an information society rather than being an individual. For change, the people, rather than a leader, need to guide their own conscious choices and politicians. 

there is medicine. Here, as the elections in Turkey approached, I tried to bring a different perspective to the way politics was conducted. It is necessary to make a strong call to politicians to stay away from discriminatory discourses and preferences. Civil society taking priority on this issue may be a promising start. Otherwise, it does not seem very difficult to foresee that this division will not remain only in political preferences.

With my love and respect…

For supporting information, see https://stateyonetimi.blogspot.com/2022/02/bilimsel-calisma-ve-taraftarlik.html

References:

H.J.Störig, (2000), Ancient Philosophy Indo-Chinese Greek, (Trans. C. Güngören, Second Edition), Yol Publications, Istanbul.

Antonio Grmasci, (2007), Prison Notebooks, (Trans. Adnan Cemgil, 5th Edition), Belge Publications, Istanbul.

https://www.hukukpolitik.com.tr/2016/05/31/direnme-hakkinda-olcu-nedir/ , E.T. 18.02.2022.