Why is Public Order Disrupted? How to Restore It?

Kamu 

An old Turkish word. 

In fact, it once meant all.

It is even mentioned in the Orkhon Inscriptions from 735.

"Kamagı seviyüz er bolmuş."

Translated into today's language, it means "All of them became seven hundred men".

But today, the definition in the dictionary "all state organs that provide public service". It also means the general public, the totality of citizens in a country.

Although in some regions they say hamısı, meaning all, and here hamısı is another form of public. In other words, the word "public" still retains the meaning of all.

We also say public opinion, creating public opinion, creating public opinion.

There is also public opinion.

***

A decision taken in the public interest is accepted by the public, even if it has some drawbacks and hesitations.

But who decides that the decision is in the public interest?

That is a bit complicated. It depends on the situation. Some may say that the decision is in the public interest, others may say the opposite, that this decision is not in the public interest.

Those who hold the power have the final say. 

If anyone objects, they will say, "You don't understand what is in the public interest and what is not".

After all, if you are in power, it is up to you to decide on behalf of the public.

And if there are too many objections, those who object will get what is coming to them. This is also a fact.

Nobody likes the marginals.

***

Maintaining public order is important.

What is public order?

It is all the rules put in place to maintain public order.

In school textbooks, these rules are categorized into four main elements: Security, order and well-being, public health and public morality.

In order to ensure this order, the textbooks also state that the state should provide administrative, economic, social, scientific and cultural services.

At this point, the organs and methods by which the state will provide these services or the maintenance of order vary slightly according to each state.

In the Republic of Turkey, the services that the central administration is responsible for and the services that local administrations are responsible for sometimes deviate from international standards. 

More precisely, especially in recent times, sometimes out of electoral concerns, sometimes out of necessity, local administrations seem to have taken over some services that should be the responsibility of the central administration.

The central administration has also recently preferred to take over some of the services that should have been the responsibility of the local administration, I think this time out of rent-seeking concerns.

To give an example, while local administrations have taken over some of the social assistance as a result of the state's failure to manage the economy well, the central administration seems to have taken control of some areas that are under the responsibility of local administrations, such as zoning rights, especially in matters involving high rents as a source of income.

Of course, since the governance of the country has become contentious in such a polarized situation between the government and the opposition, and since local administrations are a good source of financing for politics, this conflict seems to me to have turned into a bit of a pissing contest.

So we say public interest, how much do you think this situation benefits the public?

Isn't the taxi problem in Istanbul alone enough public damage?

However, if there was only public interest, this problem could have been solved long ago with everyone's dedication.

***

Through which bodies should the central administration have a direct relationship with the public?

In the provinces, the central administration, through the governorship, has authority over security and general administrative matters.

The central administration is also responsible for stability, i.e. life, livelihood, health, wealth and livelihood throughout the country. This can also include well-being.

General health services are already under the control and supervision of the central administration.

General morality, on the other hand, is already based on moral rules regulated by society's own customary rules. The duty of the judiciary, which should not be under the control of the central administration, is to punish those who do not comply with the rules.

Local administrations, on the other hand, are local decision-making mechanisms whose main task is to fulfill the services needed by the public in their areas of responsibility.

***

At this point, if you want services, local administrations need to work in harmony with the central administration, and that is why we are saying vote for us.

Isn't everyone's area of responsibility clear?

Wouldn't it be nice if the central government didn't interfere in the affairs of local governments, if they did what they are supposed to do properly, for example, if they managed the economy properly and we would prosper as a country, if local governments didn't have to provide financial support to those who are in poverty?

Would it be nice if the central administration did its full duty in terms of providing the security for which it is responsible, so that there were no robberies, mafia clashes or violence in public?

Would it be nice if it did not interfere in the affairs of the local authorities and provided equal support to everyone, regardless of party affiliation?

But no, the rhetoric is threatening that if you don't vote for us, I will block services!

Yes, this is a threat!

Will the public cower in fear of this threat and give up their free will in favor of whoever will serve them better?

We will wait and see.

I think the reaction votes will increase. 

This nation does not like those who do not respect their will.

***

I think it would be useful to reorganize the rules of public order. 

Since public order is organized in the form of central administration and local administrations, I think the responsibilities should be revised in line with the public interest.

When there is such a system with unclear rules about who is responsible for what, who does what and who cannot do what, there will be many people who want to fish in murky water.

In the meantime, some services are omitted because it is not clear whose responsibility they are, and instead of public benefit, they appear as public harm.

***

So who will correct the mistakes of this public order?

This is where the public needs to make a deliberate and conscious choice. 

If you elect administrators whose concern is not the public good, they will openly threaten you. And you will keep wondering what to do.

Like dates, the dates you ate yesterday will scratch you today.

Love and respect to everyone from Moscow.