DREADFUL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DEBATES
By Prof. FÝkret BaÞkaya*
Today’s Zaman, Turkey
April 16 2007
The presidential election has been under debate for quite some time
now. For some reason, people have not been bothered by the futility
of the debates. In most countries, the question is "Who should be
president?" in Turkey, it’s who should not be president.
Have you seen such foolishness anywhere else? Can you tell a prime
minister of an average bourgeois democracy that he cannot become
the president? Can anyone even think they have the right to make
such a statement? If you can nominate your own candidate then so can
others and you don’t have the right to interfere. In fact, in most
bourgeois democracies, the prime minister has more authority than the
president. While the prime minister enforces policies, the presidency
is a symbolic post that simply approves or vetoes legislation. So what
is the problem? The problem is with the nature of the regime in Turkey
and its association with a democratic and laic civil law. The style
and language of the "no thank you" front regarding the presidential
election actually reveals the quality of the regime and mentality of
the administration.
In the Ottoman Empire a deeply-rooted state/public isolation was
effective. This was necessary according to the Ottoman mentality. The
public did not interact with the government unless it was paying
tribute or punishment. The relationship was from top down. In 1923 the
state became a republic, but the state vs. public isolation remained. A
name change for the state did not mean a change for the society. The
republic was declared without the authorization of the leader. As a
result, there was a republic without a leader. The Devlet’I Aliyye had
become the Republic of Turkey. Those who studied the bigoted official
history and ideology, the guardians of the academic status quo and the
others never attempted to debate the nature of the regime. Actually
they could not even if they wanted to.
Despite the modern rhetoric, former mentalities and administration
styles continued. Instead of paying tribute, the public paid taxes.
They were mandated to serve in the military and were not allowed to
intervene in politics. The reason why they weren’t allowed to intervene
was because the society was perceived to be ignorant. They weren’t
ready for assimilation. In legal terms, they did not have proper
discretion and so they would remain isolated until they matured
and developed the ability to make good judgment. This mentality
is deeply rooted. There are still people who believe democracy was
implemented too soon. And that is where the problem exists. In other
words, the problem regards the meaning and nature of the transition
to democracy. Was the nation becoming democratic or were they just
making it seem like the nation was becoming democratic? What did the
multi-party system that was introduced in 1946 really mean?
The regime after 1923 was an autocratic, dictating one. After World
War II, autocracy could not function the same way because of domestic
and foreign reasons. From then on, the state would consist of multiple
parties. Turkey would employ democracy. A multi-party system meant an
increase in the number of state parties. The one-party system would
be removed. Of course, this did not mean any one could form their
own political party or form a party based on class.
Besides, there is no need for a one-party system in a nation where
a classless, assimilated, interactive society dominates. The type
of multi-party system founded did not focus on freedom of speech or
freedom of organization. The parties that were founded were those
allowed by the state. The rules of the game had changed. The state
would provide the parties and the society would provide the votes…
However, there was one thing they forgot to calculate. When people
intervene, even for limited purposes, a controlled movement faces
the risk of losing control. That is why the Democratic Party (DP)
was founded as a collusive party. Although it failed to win in the
1946 general elections because of pressure and corruption, it received
support from the oppressed majority in the 1950 elections and became
the leading power. Needless to say, when you need votes from the
public you are bound to make concessions. The concession made by the
DP disturbed the "owners of the nation." They feared they were losing
the nation. They complained that the public had intervened too much.
On May 27, 1960 a coup was held and the DP government was overthrown.
The party was dissolved and the prime minister was executed. It was in
those years that the tradition of governing the nation with collusive
parties began. The 1950-1960 period served as a lesson to the "center,"
in other words the "owners of the republic." What they needed to form
was a system where they could control the collusive parties from a
distance. To limit public intervention they used several foundations
and mechanisms (i.e., legalizing military intervention on grounds
of protection and safety, making the National Security Council an
effective and leading source, the Senate, the Constitutional Court,
etc.). They formed a structure they would be able to control from a
distance. However, since they needed public votes, matters were not
that easy for them. That’s why coups were held every 10 years (i.e.,
1960, 1971,1980 and 1997). They needed to reorganize their structure.
During the entire process, the main concern of the "owners of
the republic" was keeping the public isolated. If the public
intervened in their benefits, relief and state status were bound to
be questioned. During the process that began in 1946, an interesting
division of labor had been created between the center, which I call
the "real state party" and the environment [the collusive parties
formed by the center]. This division of labor was developed more
after each coup but it was never spoken of. Although parties in the
government knew what they could do and what they were allowed to
do, they still could not escape being overthrown. During that time,
political parties began functioning like corporations. They looted the
Treasury and the state budget to make themselves and their close ones
rich. In other words, political parties were allowed to function like
corporations as long as they did not intervene in politics. The center
had to do this if it did not want to debate its authority. The double
standard structure and the administration style of collusive parties
was the reason why political parties in Turkey were not leading powers
although they formed the government. Actually, to better understand the
situation in Turkey, look at the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
(KKTC). The real leaders there are the Turkish soldiers and next to
them stand a series of organization that are playing the democracy
game (i.e political parties, government, prime minister, president,
independent courts etc). While the government there can not collapse
any bridges without military approval, in Turkey no government can
intervene in anything that falls under the jurisdiction of the center,
if it does it will have to pay a price. For example, a party that
has come to power by election cannot debate the Kurdish problem,
talk about the Armenian massacre of 1915, initiate new opportunities
with Cyprus, or meddle in any of the regime’s taboos.
Remembering the short back plan I’ve just explained will help you
to understand the futility and oddity of the debates regarding the
presidential elections. Claims by the Republican People’s Party (CHP)
and the "no thank you front" that the republic’s principles and laicism
will be threatened if Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan becomes
president are directly related to the double standard structure I
mentioned above. In other words, it’s a confession of the nature of
the democratic game in Turkey. I wonder if the principles they claim
will be threatened are their personal interests, the leadership power
of the center, their benefits or the relief from charges? Weren’t
they the ones that wanted to use the US-controlled political Islam
against the left? Was laicism under threat then? It seems they are
seeking excuses not to follow their own rules. I wonder if laicism
champions have concerns about the Diyanet? After the 1946-50 period,
when multi-parties or rather collusive parties governed the nation,
the public voted but the parties they voted for did not represent
them. (When saying this do not think I am praising the figurative
democracy that was built to avoid real democracy.) Do those that
did not worry about the junta constitution, political parties and
election law really have a right to complain today? The CHP introduces
itself as a left-wing party and there are some who believe it is that
way. But the CHP is not even a typical political party for it to be
a left-social democrat party. The CHP is a tool of the state. That’s
why it’s not very excited and can’t be excited to become the leading
power. Besides isn’t the problem about isolating the public? The CHP
is one of several components (president, military, National Security
Council, Constitutional Court, high courts, YOK, BAR union, some
media organs, etc.) of the real leading power, what I call the real
state party and therefore it is not a typical political party. Its
sole concern is to protect the "holy state." It doesn’t care about
democratization or freedom. Actually, it owes its existence to the lack
of democratization and freedom. In Turkey, politics and bureaucracy
have a reverse relationship. The bureaucracy in Turkey is not like a
normal bureaucracy. It is like a circus game intended to fool people
about democracy. Known as a modern version of an Ottoman tradition,
bureaucracy cleans politics and molds political characters.
The constitution drafted by the Sept. 12 junta was intended to make
politics as inactive as possible, in other words they wanted to stop
democratization and prevent the public from participation. They placed
anti-democratic authoritative figures in the presidential palace,
which they perceived as their protected area. However, the junta
members and the professors that prepared that constitution did not
think unwanted people would be able to climb up the ladder. And that’s
why we constantly hear the story of how laicism is under threat. Yet,
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom they hope will not climb
further up the ladder, does not have the destruction of the junta
constitution or any other anti-democratic law on his agenda.
In such an atmosphere, debating who the president will be holds no
significance. In a country where a double standard state mentality
dominates there is no need to be a figurine in the silly democracy
game. That said, I have a suggestion… Let’s start a creative debate
that will question the nature of the regime and seek to change the
constitution, the election and political parties law, and other laws
the prevent freedom of speech and organization. Are we always going
to be fooled, pushed, and oppressed? What better time to show our
patriotism and citizenship, if not now?
*Ozgur (Free) University President
–Boundary_(ID_Hi1xB0OpIoRV2lYagNQ+bA)- –
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
