Who Belongs to the Political Responsibility of Incompetent and Ambitious Overlords?

According to general acceptance, the ideal of democracy has two basic principles: The first is freedom and the second is equality. Other freedoms are shaped around these two basic principles. In this article, we will focus on the first principle.

According to political science, freedoms are grouped under three categories: positive, negative and active status rights.

When we look at it from the perspective of the individual, the most important of these is the negative status rights. The meaning of the right to negative status in the literature is “freedoms of conscience, freedom of thought, and immunity of residence, which define the private area and boundaries of the person that cannot be exceeded and touched by the state, which impose the duty of not interfering with the state only on its 'citizen'. The more the state does not enter this field, the better the existence of a 'state' mechanism for individuals.

Positive status rights, on the other hand, include freedoms that allow the citizen to seek positive behavior, a service, and assistance from the state.

Active status rights, on the other hand, refer to the political rights that give the citizen the authority to have a say in the state administration and to participate in the decisions through referendum, election and election.

The principle of equality, on the other hand, imposes on the rulers of the country as an obligatory duty that the aforementioned freedoms should be recognized equally to every citizen living within the borders of a country.

In order to talk about the existence of a "people's government" based on democracy, one of the indispensable conditions of the principle of freedom, one of the basic principles of the ideal of democracy, is the participation of the people in the administration and having a say in the administration.

In countries where democracy is implemented as an ideal system, the people have the right to be included in the administration through their directly elected representatives, but only through the election mechanism, while at the same time they have the right to be included in the government indirectly and continuously through non-governmental organizations.

In a country, individuals or groups that come to power on behalf of the people can temporarily entrust their right to power by establishing political parties in the modern sense, according to the rate of votes given to these parties by the people. In a modern democracy, political parties take on the responsibility and duty to form a temporary government, to run the country, alone or in coalition systems. Although all the rules regarding these are defined in the constitution of each country, in general, in all democracies, state administration by the presidential or parliamentary system, within the framework of similar rules; It is carried out with the approval and indirect control of those elected by the 'locomotive' called the government. Whether there is an administration or action in accordance with the Constitution is controlled by the judges and supervised by appropriate mechanisms.

In a country, elected officials who come to power and form the government may have a tendency to gather all power within the framework of constitutional powers and definitions. Especially in the use of authority that is left ambiguous, the elected may find the right to decide according to their own political interests and expectations, in favor of the party and sometimes according to their own self-interest. On the other hand, the existence of the bureaucracy or the appointed as the executive power in the state mechanism, if the elected-appointed harmony cannot be ensured, it may hinder the rotation of the state wheel, and even the elected-appointed conflict may lock the whole system. Numerous examples can be given on this subject from the recent history of the Republic of Turkey.

In ancient times, the state would show its power through tax collection and the administration of water channels, when necessary, it would temporarily call those who could hold a gun to the military, and when the threat disappeared, it would allow the people to continue their normal lives from where they left off. The relationship of the state of modern times with its citizens is realized through highly developed and widespread networks. From birth to death, an individual's living space is surrounded by these state-controlled networks and systems. Highway networks, air transportation, railway connections, financial networks, banking system, media institutions, educational institutions, internet and interconnected systems/networks, military system, security networks, camera systems, health system, cemetery management, security links, social networks security institution, education system, bureaucratic services, communication platforms etc. many administrative networks and systems now surround today's people. Especially without internet applications, for example, without using the e-government system, it is almost impossible for any Turkish citizen to continue his daily life. In a way, such services, which offer great convenience, bring along dependency on others for those who are not accustomed to using them (especially those who are older), as well as loss of freedom and stuckness for individuals (watching by cameras, recording everywhere, tracking phone calls, watching on social media) may lead to the feeling of almost no privacy, etc.). 'Voluntary slavery', which was accepted when the state was established with the social contract, has now turned into 'involuntary slavery' in terms of individuals.

The point we want to come to here is, in the appointed-elected dichotomy, "who is the state really governed by?" question aside, to what extent can it be true for democracy that the state is at a point where it can control everything of all individuals? to draw attention to the question. Our main goal is, "Could it be possible that the state power, which has such a high control and supervision power and is expected to serve its people as an executive authority, does not see its own mistakes?" to raise the question. After all, to what extent can any system of government, whether run by the elected or by the appointed, be democratic or be seen in the interest of its citizens, which does not allow its citizens to 'breathe' and 'to be heard'? How valuable is the 'state' for an individual who has lost his freedom?

If fundamental rights and freedoms are branded so closely by the state on the one hand, and on the other hand, if every move of the individual can be followed through these networks, if the individual is kept under constant control by the "big eye", then there is no question of the existence of rights and freedoms, especially negative status rights, under such a widespread siege. is there any way to do it? The state or public authorities have the means and technical capabilities that can abolish the natural rights of individuals or subject them to significant restrictions at any time. In such an advanced technological world, how can there be "supervision and control of state power" in order to both protect our individual freedoms and strengthen the democratic values ​​that we should naturally have, in an environment where people have to be 'chipped'? Finding a meaningful answer to the question will be able to determine the 'playing area' of the individual of our age and bring along arguments that can save individuals from the 'pushed' situation experienced by everyone.

Today, under the name of "protecting consumer rights", we can activate certain mechanisms to protect ourselves in our shopping or commercial activities. If a product does not meet the standards and features of the manufacturer/seller in the promotional catalogue, if the price-quality balance does not satisfy us, then there is a problem. In order to overcome this problem, we can raise our voices as individuals and seek rights against the company by using the defined mechanisms. In fact, our 'statement' as individuals can often be seen as sufficient. In any case, commercial companies, in order to "protect their brand values ​​and prevent their commercial reputation from being tarnished", often handle such claims of individuals, whom they consider as customers, with a positive approach. They even consider it necessary to add a 'loss' item to the company expenses section to cover consumer rights.

So, is there an opportunity to seek a similar right at the state level? If the communication channels are kept open by the elected, that is, the politicians, and if there is an understanding and "interest" in the world of politics that the success of 're-election' has an effect on the elimination of the problems in the daily life of the people, then, similar to consumer rights, individual freedom rights will also be opposed to the state. may be protected. In ideal democracies, the establishment of the people's control over the bureaucracy or the appointed can only be through the "elected" and impartial legal rules. In this respect, the main things to do are to reduce the scale of the state, to clear the barriers in front of the people's access to politicians and to prevent the commercialization of politics.

In order to democratize the elected and appointed, in other words bureaucracy and politics, to ensure accountability at all levels of government, to benefit from the principles of governance, to give the public the opportunity to convey their views on fundamental issues through various media platforms, to make e-government practices measurable and traceable from an individual perspective, to make mainstream To ensure diversity in media organizations, to establish a transparent and fair human resources system that will ensure that every government official in the system is recruited according to the principle of merit and to work efficiently and effectively, to strengthen non-governmental organizations, to allow civil society to have its voice heard, to establish an impartial judicial mechanism, etc. required.

In today's Turkey, in a way, the elected-appointed dilemma of the past has disappeared. Today, the government controls all the executives at the top of the state, even the boards of directors, general managers, etc. of some institutions and organizations that can be seen as public economic enterprises has the monopoly of election and appointment. Almost all managers are selected from a single center. verticals are known. In this case, it becomes the expectation of the citizens that all elected-appointed administrators necessarily have "political responsibility". The exception to this may be the administrations in some municipalities that are not members of the ruling party. Even here, the indirect power of the power mechanism has a dominant position in the construction and functioning of a state that does not allow the realization of a "decentralized administration" independent of power.

From time to time, we witness that even the elected ones behave as if they were appointed in a way, put aside the features of being elected, and prefer to take on the character of bureaucrats. The way to get rid of this is, if the elected people who have the power make it a priority for them to be really elected, the necessary climate for the construction of a truly democratic government will emerge spontaneously.

Since the perception that appointees and elected officials are 'elected' or assigned from a single center is a simple truth in today's Turkey, we can say that in this case, only the office of the presidency is the real complaint authority against those who make mistakes in the state mechanism. In a sense, the elected and the complained authority are the same. This is a dilemma, a contradiction in Turkish politics and state life. For the individual, this contradictory situation causes incomprehension and confusion. The 'officials' who know that he was elected by the President of the Republic or who manage the institution and organization he is in with this claim, sometimes use all the power and power they have 'cruelly', but consider it a feat to avoid political responsibility. Because, the political responsibility is placed on a single person, the office of the President. While this situation causes the feudal lord system to come to life at many levels of the state, the mistakes of these overlords are recorded in the name of the President, who is politically responsible.

In this environment, the only place to seek rights for the citizen in the context of freedoms is to reach the presidential office and to contact people close to this office. However, if the people around the president (all executives in the state mechanism) are already doing their job properly, is it possible that there would be a violation of rights that would require reaching the person in the highest office of the Republic of Turkey? The problem starts here, the 'unsolvedness' on the way to the solution is knotted here.

After all, in the administrative system of the Republic of Turkey, it is also problematic for individuals to reach the President and make their voices heard in order to solve their problems! Maybe the Presidential Communication Center (CIMER) is something to give our citizens the opportunity to seek rights, but is it everything for a democratic country? At the point of solving the problems of the citizens, is it not possible to develop a solution style that does not keep the President busy and to develop a system that will actually solve the problems?

It is only necessary to ensure that the politicians feel 'political responsibility' and that they come down to the Turkish people as an auto-control mechanism without the need for the President to step in. Is it possible for an administrator (elected and/or appointed) in a state not to hear or see the groans and groans of the people in the taxi, baker, barbershop, especially on social media? Even if he didn't close his eyes, ears and most importantly his conscience!

While the people are waiting for their turn in CIMER, is it really that hard for the whole state power to show some empathy and common sense in order to hear the voice of its 'weak' citizens? Isn't it a respect and value that should come down from the mountain of Qaf and value the people, if not against the people who elected him, at least to the President who considers himself worthy of sitting in that office? Otherwise, what is the use of giving "incompetent enthusiasts" the right to seize the top management of a state office or state-owned enterprise, and to maintain their "feudal lordship" with the allegation of leaning on the president, until a respectable/reputable person sees and reports the "mistakeholder" to the President? It is certain that it is harmful to the public…