Limited Turkish democracy has denied local initiative, which led to a dense centralization of power. The division of labor in the central authority worked in favor of the military and security bureaucracy, making the political system more authoritarian and tutelary. The weight of the military in the system and the bias towards security led to harsh public policies and the squandering of valuable sources for unnecessary security measures, minimizing economic and social development. It has become increasingly clear that the system could not maintain itself any longer because its ways and means of self-sustenance have been bankrupted. To insist on this increasingly dysfunctional and anachronistic system means more social conflict and instability and more loss of time, lives and economic resources. Yet there are people and political parties who still raise hell to cling to the status quo and accuse the process of democratization of being treasonous and say the impending changes will lead to the dissolution of the country.
An individual of average intelligence could look at the reality and see that the nation-building process of the republic has seriously faltered. Rather than a united society, today the people of Turkey are divided into ethnic, cultural and ideological camps. The non-Muslims feel that they have been oppressed and misunderstood by the Muslim majority, who has viewed them as the fifth column of foreign powers. The Alevis feel that the Sunni majority has excluded them and treated them as heretics. Those who identify themselves as “secular” and modern distrust the religious and the conservative and believe that they have a hidden agenda of creating an Islamic state and stifling the secular lifestyle. The latter believe that the former, who have ruled this country, have been disrespectful of believers and have repressed them and denied their basic civic rights. Both groups are so distant to each other that they have even separated their living spaces and have minimal contact in daily life. Kurds complain about the oppressive ways of Turkification and the ethnic bias of the administration and the legal system that favors Turkishness. In return, Turks consider the Kurdish protest and resistance as treason and irredentism. Now, how can we still talk about a united nation and a successful nation-building process, which was the primary goal of the republic?
In this disunity and conflict we still talk about the “nation-state” and the “unitary state.” Unfortunately, the state as it is constructed has not been successful in creating a united and cohesive nation. It is too central, too rigid (authoritarian) and too ethnically dismissive, disregarding the ethnic and cultural plurality of the people of the country and the mechanisms for building consensus. Now there is an opportunity that lies before the country: building social consensus on the conditions of cohabitation in peace and solidarity and creating the rules/laws of this union. For this, ethnic bias in the definition of citizenship has to be replaced by constitutional citizenship. Cultural plurality has to be acknowledged and politics has to stop interfering in the cultural realm, affording cultural groups the autonomy they need in personal and community affairs provided that they do not seek dominance and a privileged position in public life.
Furthermore, the inefficient and unresponsive central administration has to be replaced by strong local initiative and participation. Local governments must take some of the burden and responsibility of running the daily affairs of local communities. But before realizing these changes, a national consensus has to be created that sees these features are vital for a participatory and deliberative democracy.
Yet there is a formidable resistance on the part of the opposition in this regard. If only they could grasp that there is an ongoing civil war in Turkey, despite the exaltation of the nation-state and the unitary state ideals -- which are devoid of realistic assessments -- which they hold on to. Then they would readily accept that this country has been very badly managed. Mismanagement was prevalent both at the level of managing change (something that the Turkish public administration was never good at) and in conflict prevention.
Rather than questioning why Turkey has failed to become a fully fledged democracy, an affluent and stable society, they blame imperialist forces. And who are these imperialists? The European Union and the United States, who else? I call this cheap and shallow analysis the syndrome of defeat. Those who are suffering from this syndrome have lost. Their politics, methods and hopes of keeping society under the shackles of the status quo have been defeated. The problem is that they have not yet realized it. However, soon they will.
