As I noted in my previous column, "stability" is a highly praised and secret term in our society. It is a concept more relevant to our "big brothers," that is, the gerontocracy. Therefore, independent of the elections, where voters declare their expectations to the government they elect, the proponents of the establishment expect its dignity to be untouched and preserved, whatever the cost or burden it creates.
They call this stability. It is obvious that there is a conceptual misunderstanding as they are confusing stability with inertia. However, even if the existing vital difference amongst these terms is clarified, it has already become crystal clear that they are not ready to accept the policy implications of it.
This stems from a wide generation gap and established interest-seeking coalitions. As a matter of fact, the official ideology is currently being represented by very old people. Although they are very small in number, they occupy strategic positions at the top of the system. Moreover, they have also established quite a strong lobbying network, backing each other with a serious class consciousness.
On the other hand, according to the latest official census in 2007, the average age of the population is less than 30. This young population, unlike their predecessors, is full of new hopes and dreams. Therefore, they want to be freed from the existing semi-closed society and to live in a more "normal" country, similar to other countries they consider normal.
As the term "change" is akin to a satanic word in their closed minds, they negatively react to the creative changes demanded by younger people. In that regard, one should continue observing Turkey in light of recent empirical evidence. Who is going to enjoy the final victory -- those seeking authoritarian stability, that is, the institutional inertia of the state, or those seeking a continuation of the recent pace of transformation and openness?
