Civil Society and The Future of Representative Democracy

Dear friends, one of the most important factors that played a role in the development of the idea of civil society has been the historical developments towards the limitation of sovereign power. The most important step in limiting sovereign power was the Magna Carta (Great Charter). After this treaty, in which the king gave up some of his powers, a historical process began in which the bourgeoisie began to gain power. What is indirectly related to our subject is the fact that the church also began to lose power in the face of this situation. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the bourgeoisie's demands for relative autonomy led to the gradual transfer of sovereignty from the monarch to the people.

It is useful to emphasize the centralizing bureaucracy and state power here. This power made it necessary to fight other powers in order to protect and expand interests. Of course, the most important source for financing wars was taxation. The bourgeoisie, which had a very high share in tax revenues, was also the driving force behind the revolutions that created parliaments that institutionalized popular sovereignty in the 17th and 18th centuries. These centuries are a period in which the idea of civil society began to gain relative autonomy from the political structure we call political society and began to be conceptualized within the framework of the "political society-civil society opposition". Although each society experienced the events I am trying to describe here under its own unique conditions, we can say that the general framework was formed in this way.

What is the Relationship between Democracy and Representation?

The transfer of sovereignty to the people, which is one of the three important elements that make up the state, has also developed the practice of self-government of the peoples. The idea of democracy, which started from Athenian Democracy, has evolved into a new understanding of democracy that includes the practice of self-governance of the people with historical accumulation. This new understanding made it necessary to redefine human rights along with citizens' rights as an indispensable part of the modern state structure. Of course, it is not possible to speak of clear boundaries in history that distinguish this development from the previous period. For example, in 1791 (i.e. two years after the revolution), the French parliament decided that human rights could not be applied to slaves on plantations. In other words, with the French Revolution, roses did not suddenly appear everywhere. However, it would not be wrong to say that civic consciousness developed rapidly after the emergence of parliaments. As the people began to claim their sovereignty, the relative autonomy of civil society over political society was gradually realized. The most important factor for this was that the taxpaying public became more willing and more conscious about self-government. If sovereignty belongs to the people, then the people who pay their taxes should also have a say in how these taxes are spent.  

When the people have a say in where their taxes are spent, this brings up the issue of participation in decision-making. In today's complex social structure, it does not seem physically possible for this to happen directly. Therefore, the formation of parliaments representing the people should allow for the widest possible representation. However, this is not enough. The people must be represented in the processes of the decisions to be taken on issues that directly concern the lives of the people in the flow of daily life, and more broadly in the policies to be formulated. Perhaps the solution to this problem, which constitutes one of the most important areas of discussion in social sciences today, is not as easy as it seems. There are many parameters that need to be taken into account in this problem, which cannot be solved only by institutional solutions, and each of which may take time to develop. Improving the public's awareness of democracy and citizenship, eliminating politics as a field of interest, defining the functions of the state on a solid basis within the framework of law, developing institutional memory and democracy awareness in all institutions, and establishing the rule of law with all its historical accumulation and institutions are some of the parameters that I consider very important. Because today's democracy and social structure is too complex for a primitive mindset that thinks that representation is achieved only by voting from election to election. The contradictions within representative democracy can be eliminated through participatory democracy, which will be realized by facilitating participation mechanisms. However, what is important here is the extent to which the degree of participation will be accepted from the perspective of political society. 

What is the role of civil society in representation?

We can describe the relationship between civil society and political society with a metaphor. Let us have two different colored balloons, one representing civil society and the other representing political society. Let us imagine that we inflate these two balloons in a box until there is no space left. After this stage, the balloon that inflates more will shrink the space of the other balloon. In fact, the balloon whose area shrinks will increase its resistance to air pressure while the other one will decrease. It is inconceivable that if one balloon bursts, the other will not be damaged. Daron Acemoglu's book "The Narrow Corridor" argues that in successful societies there is a corridor of equilibrium between political society and civil society. If this corridor is crossed to one side, that is, if the weight of civil society or political society increases to the detriment of the other, we can say that this will lead to deterioration in many social parameters. Therefore, a balance must be established between civil society and political society. In the absence of this balance, it is very difficult to ensure representation. In the face of a strong political society, the representation of civil society can at best be nothing more than tokenism. Or, if civil society is too strong, it is inevitable that the political society will be inadequate in its functions and its policy-making capacity will shrink. 

Civil society can only exist in the face of political society with an organized structure and provide the representation required by democracy. For this reason, the level of organization of associations, trade unions and professional organizations, which are the organized structure of civil society in a society, and their capacity to operate in line with their founding objectives are factors that directly affect representation. Here, it is important that democracy is internalized as a whole within the civil society organization. Otherwise, the mentality that sees its position as a means to satisfy its ego and perceives its position as a source of income will not produce a civil society organization manager. At best, an enemy of democracy who plays civil society in the shadow of political society can emerge. 

Of course, at this stage, the functions of civil society organizations in policy processes gain importance. Every civil society organization is expected to influence the policy process depending on the purpose of its establishment. For this, political society is also expected to have institutionalized and internalized participation in policy processes. The symbolic presence of civil society organizations in a policy process that does not function properly is one of the reasons for the failure of public policy. In a structure in which civil society organizations participate in the policy process and ensure that the views of their members are represented in the process, public policy emerges as a result of social consensus. The formation of public policy in a participatory democratic process shows that representation through civil society organizations is also realized at a high level. 

Conclusion

In societies with a well-developed civil society, representation is not a favor bestowed by the political community, but a requirement of citizenship rights and consciousness. This necessity ensures that the organized structure of civil society is strong and that citizens can influence public policy processes in organized structures that are in line with their views. Of course, political society cannot afford the luxury of looking at civil society organizations as a means of policy legitimization. However, the underlying idea is that sovereignty is an inalienable power that belongs to the people. If sovereignty belongs to the people, the obstacles to their participation in political processes must be removed. Civil society organizations that act with a sense of democracy are the most important parts of this mechanism. In order for the public to take part in the organized structure of civil society, they must have a sufficient level of income as well as citizenship awareness. Because the most important income item for civil society organizations to sustain their activities is the members' fees. However, many civil society organizations in Turkey are far from being able to work towards the purpose of their establishment due to financial inadequacies. 

In a country where civil society is strong, democracy does not need to be defended by anyone. Political society is aware of its limits and sees no need to overstep these limits. If democracy is to be institutionalized in our country, a strong civil society is the key.