Is Everything Coming on Top of Each Other?

The Chinese have a curse; it is said that they say ‘May you live in strange times’. There may be many people who feel as if someone has cursed them with such a curse. I think the political situation in Turkey these days is complicated enough to suggest this. In a situation where complexity dictates that all institutions function not as they should but as the interests of the government dictate, the government is also responsible for the complexity.

In societies where the functioning of politics is not clearly delimited by the rule of law, those in power have power beyond the powers granted to them by law. Although such systems may look like democracy on paper, they are in fact totalitarian structures. This is because the Constitution and legal texts that limit the power can easily be ignored when it comes to the interests of the power. Structures in which the rulers do not feel obliged to obey the law are not called the rule of law, buta ‘police state’.

One step beyond the police state, all institutions turn into corrupt instruments that prioritise the satisfaction of the power instead of implementing their own functions. The corruption of institutions reaches such a point that the state becomes unable to fulfil its basic functions. At some stage, the state, which has the monopoly to use power within the limits of sovereignty, is labelled as a ‘failed state’, even though it is ostensibly a state, as corruption becomes widespread and the use of power shifts to illegal structures. However, it is very difficult to make a clear definition of failed states. The common opinion is that a state that fails to ensure the internal and external security, health and nutrition of its people is a failed state.

Where does the law begin? If sovereignty is the power to make laws, how should this sovereignty be used? How should fair representation be ensured in structures where sovereignty belongs to the people? Who can prevent laws made despite and against the people? What can be said about governments that transform state power into a disproportionate apparatus of violence without answering these fundamental questions? It is impossible for a government to demonstrate a just administration while these questions are in the centre. A collapse in which the state cannot fulfil all its functions is only a matter of time.

If it is said that a political party that has based its raison d'être on nationalist rhetoric for years will take the lead in overturning the conviction of a person who founded and led one of the bloodiest terrorist organisations in history, no one can easily imagine such a surreal picture. To what extent it is right to hope in the source of violence in order to achieve peace, only time will tell. However, when we look at the possible outcomes of the road Turkey has travelled, it seems rather naive to assume that the primary goal is to achieve peace.

If a government manages to stay in power for 22 years despite all its attrition, corruption and injustice, it is necessary to know that there is no way to explain this with facts. Especially when the fact that this government has taken the country backwards in economic, cultural and institutional terms in the last 10 years is obvious with numbers, it should be questioned how it still manages to hold on to 30%. It is possible that such a phenomenon, which has nothing to do with material reality, is based on faith. I would like it to be known that what I mean by faith here is not only religious faith. Religious belief serves as a catalyst here to a great extent.

The fact that the President of the Republic is both the head of a political party and the head of a state has the effect of a red carpet rolled out for politics to enter everywhere politics should not enter. After a while, the roles inevitably get mixed up and the President, as a public official, starts to intervene in the state administration with his party hat and in the party with his head of state hat. A very problematic situation emerges in terms of administrative law. Because it would be a very compelling interpretation for the president of a political party to consider his work related to the political party as a public office. While a lawsuit can be filed against the administrative activities of the President of the Republic before the administrative judiciary, disputes related to political parties are not heard by the administrative judiciary. In this framework, it is legally problematic for the same person to hold both offices.

It is clear that the current President is also part of a constitutional problem. Articles 101 and 116 regulating the election of the President are quite clear on this issue. With the 2017 referendum, the phrase ‘A person can be elected President at most twice’ in Article 101 has not been changed. Therefore, it is unlawful for the President to run in the 2023 elections. Since the Constitution is in force, claiming that ‘a new system has been introduced with the amended articles of the Constitution and the process will start from here’ is ignorance of the law. Moreover, not even a temporary article has been added in this regard. Article 116 stipulates that the condition for the re-election of the President of the Republic in his second term is the decision to renew the elections to be taken by three-fifths (360) of the total number of members of the Parliament. This provision refers to the parliamentary decision required for the current President to become a candidate in any case.

Another constitutional problem is the impartiality of the President. Although Articles 101 and 103 guarantee impartiality, there is no answer to the question of how a political party chairman can be impartial. Under these circumstances, even if we accept the AKP's thesis for the 2023 elections as correct, the President needs a decision of 360 deputies or a constitutional amendment in order to run for re-election. Although it seems difficult to reach this number for the sole purpose of re-electing the President, for the People's Alliance, bringing together different political interests seems to be the only solution.

For the President, there are two major problems concerning a political personality. One of these problems is to be a candidate in a possible early election and the other is to get the votes of the people in the election. Therefore, the President of the Republic will not only have to walk on a tightrope, but will also have to manage to do a handstand on his hands and walk with his hands. Despite the constitutional provision guaranteeing impartiality, the President of the Republic, who does not hide the fact that he openly takes sides on this issue, has the opportunity and capability to mobilise the state's institutional capacity and media communication in line with this goal.

The dismissal of lieutenants from the Turkish Armed Forces was one of the issues that occupied the agenda for a long time. The difference in the evaluation of this issue in terms of the interests of the state and the interests of politics tells something to the society. I will not re-evaluate this issue, which has been discussed in almost every dimension. However, we are now living in a period where the gap between the interests of the state and the interests of politics has started to widen. Therefore, it is not possible to keep the political solutions of social problems within the balance limits of politics. Even if what is in the interest of politics is not in the interest of the state, the mechanisms that could prevent this have been eliminated. In such a situation, the assumption that most of the voters will not see the consequences of politics destroying the long-term (20-30 years) interests of the state for its own short-term (5-10 years) existence may be justified, but it is not moral.

It is not possible for a political system to survive for a long time if the raison d'être of institutions depends on the satisfaction of the political authority. What needs to be discussed is not whether the system is democratic or not, but whether its aims and objectives are understood by the public. Otherwise, the judiciary becomes an instrument of the government's policies of pressure on society. At the current stage, in order to overcome the obstacles to the President's re-nomination, a judicial stick is being waved over the possible candidates of the opposition. The decisiveness of the votes of citizens of Kurdish origin seems to have gained particular importance. The arrest of an opposition party leader in order to silence social opposition to a ‘solution process’ (!) instrumentalised for this purpose is one of the surprising political developments.

It seems that the foreign policy congestion, economic problems at home and the effect of time constraints on political balances have led the government to a process in which it has completely ignored the law, which it has not cared much about until today. On the one hand, the fact that pensions and minimum wages have turned into misery wages, on the other hand, the system established by the government through projects with guaranteed payments and constantly generating public losses is turning into an unbearable burden for citizens. In this environment, it is a surreal expectation to expect a sudden change in political preferences. Being aware of this, politics wants to prevent the reality from being perceived as it is by utilising the means at its disposal (rightly or wrongly). I believe that this is the most important function of the intense political agenda. This does not change the fact that the policies implemented also have secondary and tertiary objectives.

Within this framework, it is impossible not to see that the political developments on the national agenda have accelerated. In fact, in such a situation, events have two dimensions. The first dimension is the reality of the event and the second dimension is the perceived reality of the event. The truth does not change, but how it is perceived can change; the truth changes surprisingly according to time, situation, culture, interest, narrator, understanding, education and need. The success of politics depends on putting these factors in their proper place. It may be true that we live in strange times, but whether or not we lose our intellectual ability to perceive the truth in these strange times is a choice that is largely in our hands.

Remember, just because you are paranoid does not mean that no one is watching you.