Why is Turkey going through difficult times?
Without being a citizen, servants who do not understand the cause of the problems they experience and try to make sense of them, tend to see the problems they experience in the form of the cost of living, tax increases, hikes, etc. However, the main problem is citizenship consciousness and accordingly the right to budget, sovereignty.
Dear friends, we are going through very difficult times as a country and there is no strong sign that the problems will disappear at the end of these difficult times. If the public resources spent in the period leading up to the elections had been limited to the election economy, perhaps it would have been possible to be more hopeful about recovery. When we add the effects of the earthquake on 6 February to this picture, it is not difficult to predict that the dimensions of the distress to be experienced will be very large. Every country may go through periods of crisis. However, it seems likely that political crises such as the crisis of governance and legitimacy will be added to this crisis period in our country.
The loss of quality of human resources in a country does not happen all at once. It occurs as a result of erroneous public policy choices made in many areas over the years. Just as the foundations of the high quality education received by the cadres who founded the Republic can be traced back to the reforms of Selim III and Mahmut II in the early 19th century, the destructive consequences of deterioration in education will manifest themselves incrementally over a long period of time. The time needed to recover will be equally long.
The training and retention of a country's skilled labour force is seen as both a managerial responsibility and a skill. To do nothing to retain the skilled labour force that the state has trained by spending a portion of public resources, and to trivialise this labour force by saying "if you leave, you leave" is the greatest evil that can be done to the country and its people. But what is more serious is that this is not a random discourse but reflects a public policy. It is not difficult to predict that such a public policy will have many negative consequences such as the loss of momentum in education in the country, a decrease in the average level of education, a shortage of qualified labour needed in industry and agriculture, a loss of value-added production, a tendency towards contract manufacturing, cheap and unqualified labour becoming more open to imperialist exploitation.
Easton, who defines politics as "the authoritarian allocation of values", has actually emphasised the importance of the preferences of the political power, which has the responsibility and duty to govern a state, in the use of public resources. These preferences are manifested in the structure of the plan (budget) created for the use of public resources for a certain period. The fact that the budget is passed by the legislature as a law every year is a reflection of the right to budget. In the historical process, the concept of "right to budget", which is one of the indispensable principles of democracy, has a direct relationship with representation. In forms of government where sovereignty "unconditionally and unconditionally belongs to the nation", as a natural consequence of representation, the "right to budget" also belongs to the nation in a way that is beyond dispute. The fact that representation is problematic here cannot change the fact that the right to budget belongs to the nation. Therefore, it must be accepted that political power is subject to certain limitations. The basis of these limitations is the Constitution as the text that determines the structure of the state, the relations of the powers and the limits of sovereign power.
The Constitution sets the limits to the arbitrariness of the powers. Accordingly, when the political power, which has the right to determine public policy, goes beyond the Constitution, it is clearly defined as a usurpation of sovereignty. The most important concept in determining public policy is the concept of public interest, which also reflects the spirit of the Constitution. In other words, not only the political power but also all state institutions and organisations are obliged to consider the public interest in all their transactions and actions. In fact, this measure alone determines the limits of power to a great extent. However, in societies where the average level of education and the quality of education are low, the Constitution and laws in general, and constitutional secularism, the rule of law and democracy in particular, begin to be seen as obstacles that political powers will not hesitate to overcome at every opportunity. Here, too, arbitrariness begins. The fact that the law is helpless against this is a separate subject of discussion. As long as the public interest is ignored once.
Up to this point, I have summarised the issues that I have explained many times before in different ways in my articles. The reason for doing this was to explain that the problems we have experienced and will experience are not accidental or divine. The "Presidential Government System", which has been put into practice especially since 2018, has caused the concept of public interest to turn into a concept that expresses only a pleasant goodwill in the spirit of the Constitution. A structure has emerged in which public policy processes have completely disappeared and a single person says "be". Therefore, the obligation to consider the public interest in public policy choices has de facto disappeared.
In clear violation of Article 24 of the Constitution, religious references have (ostensibly) become the main determinant of public policy. This structure has a similarity with the regime before the French Revolution. Although the concept known as "Ancien Regime" in political science refers to the nearly 300 years of centralised system of government that preceded the French Revolution of 1789, it is used in political science literature to describe a structure that is "institutionally stagnant, economically static, culturally stagnant and socially divided"(1). Former CHP Chairman Deniz Baykal's description of the AKP government should be read in this light. It should be underlined that the exit from this problematic structure has never been historically evolutionary.
The social reality that emerged in Turkey, especially after the elections, resulted in the opposition almost falling to pieces. In my articles I have tried to partially express the major mistakes of the opposition, but the biggest problem is the strategic mistake made in drawing the boundaries of the alliance. In fact, instead of setting a clear common goal of "transition to a strengthened parliamentary system", the utopian goal of bringing different ideologies together on the same policy ground was set. Although the text on common policies is a very valuable text, it does not match the social political reality. There is a very important principle in the military: "You cannot correct the mistakes you make in the strategic field in the tactical field". In addition, the drawbacks of leader-dependent politics resulted in the bankruptcy of the electoral strategy of the most important political party of the Republic. Trying to make a success story out of this is nothing more than an attempt to convince someone that the task entrusted to them has been done.
The fiction of a political environment without opposition cannot easily be realised without the intervention of international powers in the system. When we look at all that has happened, society has been rendered unopposed by a style of politics that is disconnected from the practice of social reality. The most important of the many breaking points here, in my opinion, is that the apocalypse that should have broken in the 2017 referendum did not break. With votes that were deemed valid in violation of the law, the regime of a country was de facto changed, the sovereignty of the people was usurped and the Constitution was clearly violated. What happens from here on does not matter much. The person who obstructs the reactions that will occur in this environment has no right to pretend to be the apostle of democracy today. In my opinion, the biggest crime committed against this society is the killing of activism and the leader of the "Main Opposition" has a great share in this.
In violation of Article 101 of the Constitution, the violation of the said article in the last elections has taken its place in history as "an ordinary violation of the Constitution". In other words, Atatürk's revolutions have de facto come to an end. The sovereignty is no longer unconditionally of the nation. There is no solution left except to say "good night" to those who sleep with this tale. Questioning legitimacy is also unnecessary here. Because the government has de facto become "tyranny". Those who have been calling for a coup d'état have succeeded in concealing the coup against the existence of the state.
The foundation of Atatürk's revolutions is the construction of a new Turkish state where sovereignty belongs to the people. This foundation is based on his superior foresight and his advanced knowledge of history. Atatürk realised that a "nation-state" structure was necessary to catch the runaway train. The biggest challenge before him was to foster a sense of citizenship in a society that had historically and culturally lived its life with a sense of servitude. Although Atatürk struggled hard to overcome this difficulty and made considerable progress, his lifespan was not enough. Without completing the transition from servitude to citizenship, it is almost impossible to explain to the people that sovereignty belongs to the people. Although there are different opinions here, I believe that the break was the Democrat Party rule that started in 1950. Here, too, it is necessary to see that the international conjuncture that emerged after World War II was important and effective. The aftermath is too important and long to be discussed here.
Without being a citizen, servants who do not understand the cause of the problems they experience and try to make sense of them, tend to see the problems they experience in the form of the cost of living, tax increases, hikes, etc. However, the main problem is citizenship consciousness and accordingly the right to budget, sovereignty. For citizenship consciousness, first of all, religion must be removed from the state's (positive/negative) sphere of intervention. However, for this, the principle of "secularism", which has been enshrined in the Constitution as a result of all historical accumulation, must be firmly defended. Today, it is obvious that the evaluations of some unqualified and incompetent people who consider themselves "opinion leaders" on this issue clearly constitute a violation of the Constitution. However, in a society without opposition, no one reacts to this. I apologise, I should have said "Which Constitution?"
