Who Lost What in the Elections?

Dear friends, perhaps one of the most important elections in the history of the Republic has ended with the government regaining its current position. Even though the government has regained its current position, it seems that the doubts in political circles that it won the election will not go away easily. While some may call this the "Pyrrhic Victory", I see it a little differently. Pyyrhus, the Macedonian King who defeated the Romans in 279 BC, was fighting a different state. When he lost most of his own army, it was not difficult for the Romans, who had suffered heavy losses, to regroup their forces. This was the end of King Pyyrhus' army and he was "defeated and victorious on this road".

In Turkey, however, the 2023 elections were not a struggle between two different states, and the losses of both sides were the common losses of the Republic of Turkey. The resources consumed were so vital that no one had any idea how to recover.  

From the ruling party's perspective, the electoral defeat was not just an electoral defeat, but had two different dimensions. One of them was the risk that the big capital groups, which had established a symbiotic relationship with the government, would be in a very difficult situation if the corruption of the ruling period came to be held to account. Of course, it would not only be the capital groups that would be at stake here, but also the politicians and public servants who were in a symbiotic relationship with them. The other issue was a little more historically rooted. The beginning of an inquiry into the period when religious communities were the strongest in the history of the Republic could have threatened the existence of communities that had become a state within the state, in a process in which they had achieved such gains. The organization of these communities in the public sector could have started to unravel. Although these are the aspects of the election that can be considered positive for the government, it is not so easy to talk about something positive for the Republic of Turkey.

I will not repeat here what I have already written about the election, because it has lost some of its meaning to make political evaluations about this election. I do not want to be one of those who legitimize an election won (!) by an administration of questionable legitimacy through unjust and unlawful practices. In a country founded on the basis of popular sovereignty, the constitution is a contract text that includes the recognition by those who govern the state that sovereignty belongs to the people. Even defining the parties to the problem as power and opposition can contribute to the effort to legitimize the lawlessness in this country. For this reason, I would like to state that I no longer see the problem as a power-opposition issue. 

A people who claim their sovereignty cannot stand by and watch the regime being changed with votes that are deemed valid in violation of the law. It defends its sovereignty with the power it derives from the Constitution. Here, the opposition does not even have the right to say "let there be no unpleasantness". At this point, if necessary, there should be unpleasantness, because the sovereignty of the people, which is the basis of the Constitution, has been almost disregarded. From now on, from my point of view, there is no longer a problem of power and opposition. There is an illegitimized parliament and an illegitimized executive power. The biggest mistake of the opposition is the attempt to legitimize this order as an elected order. The people have lost their sovereignty, and this is not new. The people have lost their sovereignty when they put a person who did not meet the eligibility requirements in an office he did not deserve, when they did not raise their voices against the regime change through a coup d'état in violation of the law, when they remained silent against the candidacy of the same person for the third time despite the clear provision in the Constitution, when they accepted the use of state facilities for elections on behalf of a political party. Now the government and the opposition are playing democracy on a wreckage that has no legitimacy. One cannot continue to behave and make comments as if everything is normal. 

In a system that has no legitimacy, there is no point in saying that so-and-so is in charge of the economy or so-and-so is in charge of the Central Bank. The selection of the people who sit in these positions is based on the will of a single person. Economic policy consists of monetary and fiscal policies. Let's say there is a return to "rational policies" in monetary policy, there is not the slightest indication that the same will happen in fiscal policy. The organization of sects within the state structure is not even seen as a problem; it is accepted as a normal occurrence. Wage and tax injustices continue to increase in our country. The government is waging a struggle against the country's trained manpower through public policy. The Presidency of Religious Affairs and the Ministry of National Education are organizing a protocol in clear violation of the Constitution, on the basis of which imams are sent to schools. In many areas, political influence overrides merit. In fact, nothing is changing and it is useless to pretend or expect that it is.

After all, there is a limit beyond which even a government that has seized state power illegitimately cannot be sociologically adequate. This is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the election results for the government. It is foreseeable that a government that is not supported by half of the citizens of the country in any way, especially if it takes steps without recognizing the Constitution, will be caught in the legitimacy problem. The legitimacy crisis goes beyond the failure of the administration to abide by the law. It arises due to growing public distrust of the executive, legislature and judiciary. Surveys conducted in various forms show that this trust problem continues to increase. The root cause of distrust lies in the fact that the rulers do not consider themselves bound by the rule of law. The principle of the rule of law exists to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their position, duty or identity, act in accordance with the law. As the problem of trust grows, the belief that those who govern the country are doing what is right for the country is lost. At some stage, problems of disobedience may begin to arise. This can have very negative consequences in many areas, from taxation to security. 

In order to prevent a crisis of legitimacy, it is sufficient to comply with the principles of the rule of law. Moreover, the rule of law is one of the fundamental qualities of the Republic of Turkey as enshrined in Article 2 of the Constitution. In other words, this is not a matter of arbitrariness, but of necessity. Even if there is a problem of trust within the rule of law, this can be solved through democratic elections. In other words, when the law is adhered to, a problem of legitimacy does not easily arise. However, the belief in the integrity of elections held in an environment where there is no justice is also undermined. This is exactly what happened in Turkey. The votes received and the people elected do not make anyone legitimate. Because the process is democratically problematic. Those elected may be unsuitable. If there is no law, there is no trust. Any attempt to go back from the rule of law, which is an important stage in the institutionalization of societies, inevitably leads to a crisis of legitimacy. 

In the international dimension, other countries may to some extent not care whether there is democracy or law within a country or not. However, a crisis of legitimacy may also arise at the international level when behaviors contrary to international law become evident and interests begin to suffer. For example, if Turkey persistently fails to abide by the ECHR decisions it has signed, a process that could lead to Turkey's expulsion from the Council of Europe could begin. Making the country untrustworthy at the international level would have many economic and social implications. In fact, disregarding international law is one of the main factors leading to a crisis of international legitimacy. There is no difference between not implementing international agreements that have been legally ratified and entered into legislation and not implementing the Constitution. This risk should not be ignored for Turkey in the period ahead.  

Conclusion

The whole country lost in these elections. What did we lose? We lost the dreams of our children to live in a fairer, democratic, secular and social state of law. We lost peace and security by becoming the refugee warehouse of Europe and having to struggle with security problems that will not be solved for many years. We lost the possibility of reaching the income we deserve by becoming a country where reaching the minimum living standards of human beings will be considered a luxury. We lost our dreams of traveling to different countries as citizens of a respected country in the world. We have lost the beauties of democracy in a country where prohibitions have become widespread and freedoms have become an exception. In an environment where sects are organized within the state without any legal status, we have lost the possibility of meritorious people taking office. We have lost science, education, humanity, conscience, morality, quality and justice. In an environment where there are no winners, maybe you may not see the situation so grave. But this is what I see.

Article 6 of the Constitution states that "The exercise of sovereignty shall under no circumstances be vested in any person, group or class. No person or body may exercise any State power that does not derive its source from the Constitution." It is unacceptable for a single person to decide everything. The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey has turned into a paradoxical text with the current system. Article 309 of the Turkish Penal Code. I do not know if a legal interpretation can be made about the concepts of "force and violence" in Article 309 of the Turkish Penal Code, such as the state's own power being directed against itself, but this is what is happening in the process we are going through. In this environment, it no longer matters what the government or the opposition says. In an environment where everything has lost its legitimacy, the existence of the opposition can also be questioned. In a society where no one can stand behind the defense of the law, nothing can be secured. The usurpation of law is not only carried out by the rulers of the state. The opposition and citizens who contribute to the legitimization of lawlessness are also partners in this usurpation. The opposition should not criticize the "one man regime" on the one hand, and on the other hand try to impose one man-like impositions on the people.   

No one should engage in the nonsense of "since the current Constitution is not being implemented, let's make a new one". The constitution is made by constituent assemblies, not by the fait accompli of a parliament that makes you worry about the future when you see who was elected in the last election. And the people must understand and act accordingly that sovereignty is a great value that cannot be easily regained once lost. Gods are not easy to kill, even in the modern age. 

In the end, every people is ruled and ruled as they deserve!