Is Social Assistance Sustainable in Turkey?

In our country, we see that the same political party has somehow remained in power for 22 years. The saying ‘Statistics is the art of lying with numbers’ is important in terms of explaining how politics is done at the rhetorical level. This is valid for both the government and the opposition. However, it should also be noted that there is an inversely proportional relationship between the degree of the lie told by the politician and the level of perception of the audience. For example, while the national income per capita does not mean anything on its own, the fact that a person who cannot buy meat for his/her house rejoices at the high figure announced is a derivative of such a deception. In this article, I will touch upon the relationship between social assistance and politics and try to question its sustainability. In this article, social assistance, which is the subject of this article, is used only in the sense of assistance provided to those who need state support to live. The conceptual content of social assistance is much broader. 

The concept of the welfare state refers to an approach that was accepted all over the world after the Second World War. According to this approach, the state considers itself responsible for ensuring minimum living standards for all its citizens. This must be well understood. Otherwise, the concept of the social state may be understood as the state's continuous aid to people who do not contribute anything to the country. The expression ‘the Republic of Turkey is a social state of law’, which is among the qualities of the Republic of Turkey in the second article of our Constitution, would not be meaningful without the ‘Economic Provisions’ in Chapter Four, Section Two. This is because increasing development and welfare and improving employment are recognised as the most important functions of the state. Therefore, the Constitution should be considered holistically not only on this issue, but on all issues. For example, secularism is not only included in the second article, it gains meaning with the issues included in the 24th article.

In order to implement the social state approach, public policies should be considered holistically. This issue is closely related to fiscal, health, education and employment policies. The use of social aids during elections as an election propaganda has a dimension that should actually disturb and disturb people. This means that the governments have not only failed to fulfil their duty of increasing the income and welfare of the country, but have also left its citizens in need of assistance. This is a failure in the true sense of the word. Imagine a country where pensioners are experiencing difficulties in making ends meet despite receiving salaries. The fact that the purchasing power has fallen according to all parities points to major long-term mistakes in the policy choices of the government. 

Limited resources in the economy inevitably necessitate a ranking of priorities. The policy preferences in this ranking determine the position of the political power between success and failure. In order to increase welfare in a country, the resources allocated to education, science and health should be more than other areas. Although building places of worship and appointing religious officials to these places is a political preference, its correctness is a debatable issue. Let us develop the example to make the issue more concrete. When the number of people in need of social assistance is increasing, this preference is no different from saying ‘I do not see any hope of increasing your welfare in the future, better pray to God’.

While the use of social assistance for propaganda purposes in elections is disturbing even on a rhetorical basis, the use of the power of the ruling power for this purpose can turn into a threatening tone such as ‘if you vote for me, I will give you these’. Today, while technological means enable states to determine who is in need of aid without any doubt, it is an unexplainable betrayal to give aid not to those in need but to the supporters of a political party. Because political parties have no duty and responsibility to protect their supporters. A political understanding that comes to power to serve the whole country and its citizens and favours certain segments is far from morality and patriotism. 

Even if we do not go into the issue of misuse and excessive use of resources that should be used for the welfare of the people (for the public good), which is also a matter for the judiciary, the responsibility for public policy lies with governments. Because the duty of the government is to make the right policy choices to increase the welfare of the people, to use resources for the public good and to take all necessary measures for this purpose. If someone wakes up one morning and says, ‘Gosh, we made the wrong choices, we need resources. Let's forget about the wage balance, let's cut some amount from the salaries of pensioners", the public interest disappears and all the wrong choices made become the subject of judgement. It is not possible with reason and logic to think that such a situation would be possible in a developed country that has completed its institutionalisation.

As the need for social assistance increases in the country, social assistance turns into a populism race that also affects the elections. Generally, you will not hear any politician saying ‘our aim is to increase welfare and reduce social assistance in the future’. As the resources allocated to social assistance increase, there is a relative decrease in the resources allocated to science, education and health. Without making the right choices in politics, a vicious circle that is impossible to get out of is entered. Those who are accustomed to using the power of the state begin to see it as their inalienable right to use the resources of the taxes paid by the people for their individual preferences. A senior bureaucrat at the head of an institution whose very existence should be questioned becomes able to choose even the brand of the office car allocated to him/her. 

Erroneous policy choices lead to misuse and inefficient utilisation of resources. This problem in the public sector, together with the problems in wage policies, eventually spreads to all enterprises in the country as a management mentality. A serious inefficiency crisis emerges in the economy. The economy becomes unable to grow with its own dynamics. On the one hand, the government, which has to create new resources due to wrong choices, increases taxes and cuts in wages. Since the source of the problem is not correctly identified, all efforts to create new resources are stolen from the welfare of the people. Whereas reversing erroneous policy choices would solve all problems, rhetorical solutions are easier for politicians. Thus, while the people are impoverished on the one hand, on the other hand they cling to the politicians more tightly with the belief that good days will come. Politicians, on the other hand, think that there is no problem and start to feel entitled to insist on their erroneous policy choices.

As a result, people who are happy to receive social assistance waste their lives to ensure the legitimacy of a corrupt order in which their children will not receive even as much social assistance as they do. Even if the snow falling on the lowlands does not chill politicians who do not think about the end of the business, it is enough to make the people, who lose welfare in the long run, crawl. In short, social assistance is a requirement of the social state principle, but it is not a sustainable solution. As the resources allocated to social assistance grow, these resources are necessarily provided from the resources that should be allocated to ensure future welfare. The level of social assistance is inversely correlated with the success of a country's politics. If a political government wants to increase welfare, the policy choices it should make are clear according to the conditions of the country. Expecting success by making wrong choices and making the public believe that this success will come cannot be explained with good intentions. What needs to be said in terms of the people is this; there is no people who can live in prosperity if their fate is tied to the fortunes of politicians. 

With respect and love...