politics

Recent Developments in Turkish Politics

Dear friends, Turkey has entered a very crucial election period. When we try to analyze one aspect of the process we are going through, the possibility of making very misleading inferences seems quite high. When we try to address all dimensions, we cannot go beyond imprecise predictions due to the limited information we have. Nevertheless, it is possible to discuss the prominent issues in this election process under the headings of economy, local governments and political parties. Of course, evaluating these three issues independently of each other may mislead us. For this reason, it should be considered normal that we frequently refer to other areas in our evaluations. In addition, we may often have to resort to normative explanations in our evaluations. The reason for this is the strong belief that the institutions and rules of democracy are not functioning properly, as well as the fact that the law, which represents institutionalization in a society, has the appearance of moving away from this quality. But in this case, if we insist on not seeing the social reality as it is, the evaluations take on a purely normative content, which is more like a journey to a dreamland with the developments that we would like to see happen from within, rather than an evaluation of a phenomenon, i.e. it leads us nowhere.

How Can Economic Developments Affect Elections?

All developments in the economy should be read as conscious processes that are the result of policy choices. If the policies implemented are cheapening the price of labor and diverting public resources to unproductive areas, this is not due to policy choices imposed on the country by "foreign powers", but to the policies implemented by the government. There is a rule commonly known as the "golden rule" in public borrowing. Public borrowing should be preferred for financing capital expenditures, not for financing current expenditures. Turkey is currently borrowing to cover current expenditures to manage a maximum period of six months. The postponement of the debt to Russia for natural gas imports until 2024 is the product of such an effort. But what will happen if a new government takes office six months later? It would be useful to discuss the consequences of this as an agenda for another article.

According to TURKSTAT data, in the January-September period of 2022, the foreign trade deficit increased by 156.3% from $32 billion 423 million to $83 billion 97 million. The ratio of exports to imports decreased from 83.2% in the January-September period of 2021 to 69.4% in the same period of 2022" (1). By the end of December, the current account deficit reached a record high of USD 110.2 billion (2). Anyone who understands economics knows that there is no way to make a success story out of these figures. For this reason, the government seems to have turned to an election propaganda based on faith and security. The natural result of this policy is polarization and hostility towards those who do not think like them. There is a very important question to be asked here. Why would a government that cares about the future of the country pursue such a policy? It seems very difficult to answer this question in good faith.

Although the minimum wage does not satisfy anyone, it has been increased by 54.5%, which is above the general wage level of the country. The convergence of the general wage level and the minimum wage continued, as the increase given to civil servants and civil servant pensioners was once again below the minimum wage increase. While the EU average for the ratio of the number of people earning the minimum wage to the number of employees is 9%, this ratio is 57% in Turkey (3). This data reveals something very clear. Turkey seems to prioritize attracting foreign investment by following a cheap wage policy. But this is a quagmire. Allen expresses this in the following words; "The subsistence minimum is a poverty trap. The Industrial Revolution is the result of high wages, not just the cause" (4). In other words, you have to give up industrialization with a low wage policy. Especially in an environment where the concept of "Industry 4.0" is being discussed around the world, it is the people's most natural right to know what the government thinks about what this will cost Turkey.

Although the economy is a deep topic in itself, it is possible to explain its impact on the elections in a few sentences. The dissatisfaction of the wage earners will obviously not reflect very positively on the government. However, from the opposition's point of view, we can say that the opposition still has problems in telling the truth to the public within the established media system. It is difficult to say that the government has been able to put forward a strategy that can change the perception of virtual reality that has been created by the government in one way or another on the masses. In the long run, it is not easy for the government, which is responsible for a very unsuccessful economic picture, to survive. However, to say that the government, which has many tools it can use in the short term, will definitely lose the elections may be a misreading with serious consequences. Whether the government's options are in line with political ethics and public morality is beyond the scope of today's issue.

Local Governments and the Question of Candidacy

What may be the beginning of the end for the government is the loss of mayorships in metropolitan municipalities such as Istanbul, Ankara, Antalya, Mersin and Adana in the 2019 local elections. Even though the mayorships in Ankara and Istanbul were lost, the fact that the majority of the municipal councils remained with the People's Alliance parties has the potential to change the picture in favor of the political power in a possible change of mayor. Such a possibility seems to draw the government into a democratically problematic approach to utilizing the means and capabilities of these municipalities in the run-up to the elections. What do we mean by democratically problematic? Let us try to clarify this.

Article 127 of the Constitution grants the central government tutelage authority over local governments. However, when the use of these powers is evaluated within the framework of the entire legislation, it is expected that the authority of tutelage over local governments should not be in a manner that would undermine the democratic rule of law. This is understandable within the unitary state structure. However, especially with the transition to the Presidential Government System, there have been numerous examples of how a partisan president can increase the problems between the central government and local governments. Perhaps the most problematic of these examples is the practice of appointing trustees to municipalities by dismissing elected mayors through an administrative act without any judicial decision. In fact, there have been very concrete examples that show that defending the rule of law means defending the rights of others before defending oneself. The clearest criticism to be made here for the opposition parties is that they did not take a very clear political stance against this practice at the time and did not defend the rule of law very loudly. Of course, I am not saying that there was no reaction at all. Political views, ideologies and beliefs should not prevent the reaction that should be shown. The whole point is to look at the problem legally.

In terms of the impact of local governments on the elections, there are two dimensions to the issue. The first one is the possibility that local government facilities could be mobilized by the government to influence the outcome of the elections. The second is the expectation that if one of the mayors of Ankara and Istanbul is nominated as a candidate, the government will utilize the resources of these metropolitan municipalities to the fullest (including the possibility of borrowing) in the period leading up to the election. In this case, the opposition's nomination of one of these mayors could lead to the government gaining the means to influence the outcome of the election. Another possibility is that the government unlawfully appoints trustees to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, as it did in the Southeast. The only difference is that the judicial dimension of the process will be finalized in the way the government wants through various mechanisms. The difference in Istanbul, however, is that almost one out of every five voters in Turkey lives in Istanbul. If the government makes a move to appoint trustees, the legitimacy crisis it would create could have an even greater impact than the reactions of the opposition parties. This could lead to a process that Turkey, which already has a problematic outlook abroad, would find it difficult to manage, especially in relations with the EU. Of course, this is an interpretation that should remain within the framework of political science. There are many parameters affecting the problem and new ones can always be added.

Political Parties and the Problem of Democracy

Political parties seem to have had to struggle in a highly problematic political climate in the run-up to the elections. A large part of these problems stem from the fact that the chairman of a political party sits in the presidential office wearing two hats. The remaining part seems to stem from the so-called "Presidential Government System" in which decisions are taken in an over-centralized manner. While political parties are seen as an indispensable element of democracy, ignoring the requirements of democracy leads to a huge inconsistency. It is the same kind of inconsistency to recognize the concept of "rule of law" as the foundation of the state in the second article of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey when listing the qualities of the Republic, but to see the law as consisting only of what suits one's own ideas.

No citizen who is a bystander to the distortion of the legal system, which is the last stage of institutionalization in a country, has the right to complain about lawlessness. If the law for you is good, but the law for those you don't like is bad, there can be no social peace. As a human being, I also have a political view. I may not like some political views. But this does not require me to justify the unlawfulness against that political view. Because when any right is usurped, all rights are no longer secure. Unfortunately, a media system that prevents polarized societies from understanding and interpreting what is happening is the most useful tool of totalitarian regimes.

As we move towards elections, an approach that criminalizes political parties is a usurpation of the right to vote of every citizen who voted for that party. Of course, political parties are not independent from the law. But they should not be subject to arbitrariness, political discourse or divisive attitudes that divide society. If the law and academia (science) are silent in a country, the wrong people begin to speak, and every word that comes out of the mouths of these wrong people prepares the ground for the slaughter of all that is good and beautiful. If political parties are an indispensable element of democracy, it should not be forgotten that every vote given to those parties is a lifeblood for the survival of democracy. Therefore, in a democratic society, in order for different voices to survive, it is important to respect different views, especially those that you do not agree with. In this sense, the political power should be aware that marginalizing behaviors that will benefit them in the short term will have devastating effects on citizens in the long term. It is not necessary for the opposition to act collectively, but it is essential for it to act principled. Voting in elections is much more than the exercise of a simple democratic right.

Conclusion

It is discussed that the elections will most probably be held on a date to be determined in April-May. It is possible to develop two different perspectives on this election: short-term and long-term. In the short term, the political power, which has the means to use state power, is in a position to gain an advantage, but the long-term effects must be taken into consideration for the interests of the country. I believe that the government's choices that are incompatible with political ethics and justice may cause great damage to the country in the long run. The beginning of this damage may be a crisis of legitimacy. If the opposition acts on the basis of principles rather than political differences, it will create a common ground. It is important that six parties with completely different political positions have come together on the basis of principles. However, it would be useful to have rules that the parties must abide by in the management of the process. Party staff rather than leaders should be careful about attitudes and discourses that can be easily exploited in a media system that is already under the control of the government. If the idea that brings these political parties together is seen as "the negative situation in the country", no one can attack the articles of the Constitution, which is the guarantee of the Turkish nation's coexistence. If such an idea exists, it is contrary to the fundamental determination that brought the six political parties together. In other words, it is one thing to defend this view as a political party and another to defend it within the Six-Party Table. The Table of Six does not have a magic formula. It is just a platform of six parties that have agreed on fundamental issues. Each party has a separate legal personality and a separate program, but each party should be aware of the responsibility that its participation in the platform imposes on its legal personality. I believe that the upcoming elections are the most important elections of the Republic of Turkey and no one can afford to think about themselves.