The Greek polis was small; in fact very small, and certainly not democratic in the modern sense of the term because slaves, women and “barbarians” were not part of Greek democracy. Aristotle believed in the natural inequality of certain human beings such as women and slaves. They were inferior by birth and had no chance of overcoming their “natural class.” The Greeks called those who did not speak Greek “barbarians”; in fact, the word barbarian is probably from the sound “bar bar bar…” which the non-Greek speakers made when they tried to communicate, without success.But here speech does not simply mean speaking Greek but also the ability to use “logos,” i.e., language, reason and logic all at once. The Greeks were different from barbarians because they conducted their affairs as “political” issues, i.e., resolved their differences through negotiation, persuasion and conflict resolution. By contrast, the barbarians resorted to violence to solve their problems.
Applying these key definitions of politics, which lie at the root of the Western political tradition, to our present situation today, one wonders if politics today has any meaning at all. Politics as the art of the possible no longer serves the interests of the people or the community. Politics in itself has become a source of power and interest. There is no clear yardstick or measure by which politics is to be conducted. We talk about democracy, human rights and the rule of law as the (new) golden rules of modern politics, but we all know that these are mere words when not applied properly and rigorously. And we know that they are often not applied, or applied with all kinds of double standards. This is true from the so-called most advanced democracies of the world to the most autocratic and oppressive regimes. Various forms of violence and interest rather than intelligence and persuasion underlie much of politics in the world today.
A typical example is the debate over the democratic initiative in Turkey. The government’s effort to resolve the Kurdish issue through peaceful means to the extent possible is seen by the opposition as treason. They believe the democratic initiative will create new ethnicities in Turkey and weaken Turkey’s war on Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terror. These criticisms are groundless because ethnicities (i.e., the Kurdish identity) do exist and will not go away if Turkey were to resort to more stringent military tactics. On the other hand, if the goal is to end terrorism, how can the democratic initiative weaken Turkey’s resolve to end terrorism?
The more striking question is what the opposition is proposing as a solution. The “Dersim model” put forward by Onur Öymen, the deputy head of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), is a typical example of what I mean by the end of politics in the 21st century. Öymen believes that Turkey’s current Kurdish issue can be solved through harsh military policies in the same way the Dersim events of 1937-1938 were handled, i.e., by killing off the people of Dersim (today’s Tunceli) to punish their revolt against the state. Assuming that the Dersim policy was a success, though this is very questionable too, can it really be applied today to any of our problems? The state can use its powers and use violence to establish order. But can it really serve the interests of the people?
Turkish politics is confronted with a major test. Either it will find a rational and humane basis to justify itself, or become a tool of oppression, ignorance and violence. The democratic initiative opened up a new debate not only in regards to the Kurdish issue but also and more importantly about the nature of Turkish politics. My fear is that the opposition will resort to populist policies as a source of profit and further antagonize the society over the Kurdish issue. But my hope is that the Turkish people’s deep “insight” (what the Greeks called phronesis and what we call “basiret” in Turkish) will triumph in the end. This will be a victory not only for the success of the democratic initiative but also and more importantly for politics itself.
