The referendum beyond polemics
by
NACİ BOSTANCI*

First and foremost, the referendum is important in terms of power relations in Turkey. If a country’s social situation, economy and politics are changing and, in line with this, its elite class and ultimately the collective intellect’s ability to analyze events are changing, it is inevitable for power relations to change as well. There are certain power circles in Turkey. The first is big capital, then the higher bureaucracy, which shares the same worldview as big capital, and ultimately traditional political elites. While the alliance of these three groups experiences tension from time to time, they can quickly unite, especially when there are developments that threaten their power bloc.

Let’s recall the parties that have been called center right since the 1950s and were mainly in power until the 1980 coup and their representatives. They had two concerns: the country’s development and improvement, and active public participation in politics. But they tried to achieved these goals “to the extent possible” through cooperation with big capital and the higher bureaucracy in their existing power relations. In fact, the picture today shows that some elites in the center right had a completely opposite mentality and “supposedly” requested the “public’s active participation” as an ideologically legitimizing factor of the continuation of big capital and the higher bureaucracy’s system of tutelage.

Manipulating the public

They strengthened the existing form of power by manipulating the public. Now that the public is “truly” about to gain importance, they don’t hesitate to switch to the side of traditional power elites. This is the explanation for why those who until today had constantly talked about the superiority of the public and the public will switched to the “no” side in the Sept. 12 referendum without blinking an eye. This attitude cannot be explained by simply saying there is a search for a power that confronts everything that comes before it. What we have in question is an “ideological alliance and lifestyle partnership” that transcends political stances during critical moments in history. A sufficient example in this regard is the attitude of President Süleyman Demirel, who after the Presidential Symphony Orchestra (CSO) performed Beethoven’s 9th Symphony during the Feb. 28 process said, “This is it, a modern Turkey.”

The second power circle is the new financial elites that started growing after 1980, newly literate people mobilized by education, and political elites from the same social segments. This circle grew in terms of quantity and became increasingly more effective with the support of the public, with which it had deep material and moral ties. Frequently uttered words like “change,” “democracy” and “freedom” and the new Turkey that these words called for are the attributes of the path to power that these groups embarked on with the public. As the public’s vote becomes relatively more significant compared to the past and the will in the polls became the most dominant factor in power relations, the strength of the second power bloc increased, giving it more courage to shape the new Turkey.

In the first power alliance, big capital and traditional political elites outside of the higher bureaucracy become a weak link in the “face of social change.” For big capital, one of the most important components of the “modern world,” which it feels it is a part of, is democracy and freedoms. While big capital identifies itself with these values, it worries because these values threaten its power. How this tension will conclude is critical. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan made the “choose a side” appeal with respect to the referendum because of this tension. The political elites of this group have also “finally” understood that the support of the “public” is necessary to come to power and have started practicing coming to terms with this reality.

They are aware of the need for “change” and the need to show more interest in the “public.” But we cannot expect politicians, who for many years had a different view of politics, used their “ideology” to legitimize themselves and believed that was enough, to change overnight. But the process has started.

The remaining strong link is “higher bureaucracy.” It was inevitable for higher bureaucracy, which could not provide justification for its influence in power relations with norms like “democracy and public consent,” to search for a new basis for “why it needed to rule.” They found this basis in the need to “protect and preserve the republic,” which they always found to be functional and partially beneficial to their solidarity with certain civil circles.

That means: “I must rule because there are people that want to sidetrack the republic.” But actually, it was only their power and privileges that were being sidetracked. In this way, the “proponents and opponents of the republic” polemic came to life as a euphemism to the real backdrop of power relations.

‘Ignorant, senseless public’

The first view of the polemic is that the public is ignorant and senseless. It cannot recognize its own interests. When you say this, you admit that you don’t recognize the legitimacy of democracy. The second view is that these people have a secret plan and that they are deceiving the public. A secret plan and public deception refer to “Islamism and separatism,” which have always been centrifugal policies.

But new ideas are being put forward about both issues. With respect to Islamism, they create different versions of “they look like they are liberals and democrats but if they ever had the opportunity, they would kill us liberals.” People say that we are becoming more conservative, that differences between people are becoming limited, and that there is a desire to shape Turkey according to religious beliefs.

Another leg in producing ideologies is putting into play the “community ghost.” The message is this: “There is a ruling party that is somewhat acceptable. But inside that party is a ‘community’ that has expanded by benefiting from the party’s resources. That community is the real danger.” Isn’t this community reference similar to the role attributed to the Azcimendis during the Feb. 28 process? Conditions change but some patterns stay the same. The claim regarding “separatism” includes “they’ve made a deal with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party [PKK]; they are playing a role in Turkey’s division; and America has assigned them this duty.”

Without feeling any need for evidence, some people are banking their hopes on listing plots and clichés like America, separatism, the traitorous games of foreign forces and their local collaborators.

But what they forget is that referring to the people today with a pre-1980 political lexicon won’t sell. Words that are based on the fears and sensitivities of a closed society cannot achieve their goals today. People want a convincing explanation, justification and evidence. The tragedy of falling elites can be explained with their desperate strategy to do whatever they can do. The referendum is before the public today as part of the heavy power relations. The public is going to recall all of this, make an analysis and vote accordingly.

Will people pay heed to the “republic is in danger” polemic which those who don’t want to lose their tutelage and are used to being held unaccountable created to protect their power that is at stake or will people be in favor of democracy, freedoms and the public will? The answer to this independent of political parties is 70 percent “yes.” This 70 percent figure is determined by what happened over the last 30 years with respect to political values.

However, parties that will vote “no” will be able to convince a portion of voters to vote “no” with them because they use a harsh tone in their campaigns that provoke political emotions. Every point under 70 percent will be the outcome of party emotions and not because of “the voters’ real opinion.” But it should, in any case, not be expected for this rate to reach a level where it can change the basic parameters of the accumulated political wealth which relies on many years or expect that even if it can’t make “no” votes surpass “yes” votes it can give them a surprising push.