Pro-status quo reactions from displaced groups of Turkey’s ancien régime
by
LEVENT KÖKER*

However, certain “arguments” made by those who do not like the “choice made by the majority” whenever a popular vote has been held -- or whenever the public has gone to the “polls” -- since the 2007 general elections are doing great injustice to Turkey’s democratic acquisitions. In the July 2007 elections, conducted amid a political and constitutional crisis that emerged in connection with the presidential election, Turkish voters voiced clear disapproval of efforts to interfere with democracy and, in spite of this, some groups still expressed absurd reactions to the election results. One of the most memorable of these -- the “success” of its author should be acknowledged -- was that the public was “jerry-headed” -- meaning hollow-headed, simply because they voted contrary to his expectations. Another ludicrous reaction was the criticism of the principle of “universal and equal suffrage” voiced by some. Similar and even worse reactions -- including accusations of treason -- were also heard being voiced in the wake of the recent referendum.

Losing privileges

It is possible to characterize all of the above as simply being the inevitable reactions of the supporters of the “status quo” in Turkey, those factions which, because of the changes occurring, stand to lose some of their privileges, or their deep-rooted interests within the framework of the long-standing system. Alongside this, no matter how unacceptable some of these outbursts may be from the perspective of Turkey’s democratic values and situation, the fact is that some of the points made by these opponents to change deserve our attention.

One notable point is actually in relation to an old tension within the framework of global democratic history. This tension derives in fact from the Ancient Greek idea that democracy means “absolute rule by the majority of the people,” an idea that has existed now for hundreds of years. According to an old interpretation of democracy, which was oft mentioned by both Plato and Aristotle, and then passed down to further generations, democracy is “rule by the poor and ignorant masses of people,” and is actually a bad sort of regime. This interpretation lasted all the way until the end of World War II, and was used for nearly 2,005 years by tyrants to rule over the “ignorant and poor people” for evil purposes. One reason this idea emerged in the modern ages was that some of the “masses of nations” did not really understand the values embodied in the expression “individual freedoms.” To put it another way, the “unenlightened choices” made by the majority of people could clash with individual freedoms, and these clashes could turn into a transformation of the regime into “tyranny by the majority.”

We see that there are some notable examples of the tension that derives from the clash between this “rule by the people” interpretation of democracy and general freedoms. These examples are played out on the Turkish as well as the world stage. For example, the whole “for the people, despite the people” approach so prevalent in Turkey’s single-party period was based on the preconceived understanding that the people of the nation would not choose what was best for them. There are certain examples of this preconceived understanding, which formed the basis for the guardian regime that people now want eliminated, which we see from the single-party period in Turkish history.

‘People being tricked’

For example, in response to demands that the two-tier electoral system used in Turkey prior to 1945 be eliminated and replaced with a single-tier electoral system, single-party leaders claimed that the “people would be tricked” and that Parliament would thus be stocked with “sheiks, aghas and other tyrants.” The claim that the “people could be tricked” was rooted in the perception of the people of the nation as “poor and ignorant,” and at a level much below those who had been educated at university. Though so much time has passed, and Turkish society has achieved a much more even level of development, we still see that the reactions today echo the mentality of the nation’s single-party period, and are ultimately in opposition to the principle of “general and equal votes for all.”

It is no doubt clear that these are ultimately analyses which must be criticized and overcome, and which can never be at peace with a pluralistic and pro-freedom understanding of democracy.

Alongside this, though, we do note that the whole “the people are being tricked” supposition continues on as an anti-democratic phenomenon in today’s political world in Turkey. For example, just as it has been alleged that the general ignorance and poverty of the people of the nation were used by the AK Party in the 2007 general elections, in the 2009 local elections and in the most recent referendum on constitutional amendments, similar accusations and allegations are now being thrown around in order to pick up votes from the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP).

But now it is not just being “tricked” that is being talked about, but being “scared.” According to the allegations, votes cast for the BDP are based on “threats,” and do not thus reflect the voters’ true will. A similar allegation of “fear,” in a slightly ironic way, is something we have heard in connection to the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) elections. Those who are not pleased with the results of the HSYK elections are alleging that they took place under threats from the Ministry of Justice.

So let’s call this what it is: If Turkey is to become more democratic, if it is to achieve global standards of democracy, it must be the will of the people at work in deciding both general and local elections. The Turkish people (or more realistically speaking, the voters) create on their own a pluralistic society with a variety of different demands and expectations. And one of the preconditions to this society becoming more democratic is to accept this pluralism, and to do what is necessary, as implied by the slogan “our differences are our wealth.” The acceptance and implementation of this kind of plurality means, very concretely, the setting down of existing and well-known human rights in a manner that makes no concessions, and does not shy away from doing what needs to be done. This kind of democratization, in the face of certain voters who will no doubt not like it, cannot take place when said voters dismiss the people’s will as deriving from “ignorance,” or “because they were tricked” or “scared.”

What needs to happen is for the whole society to accept the sincerity and accuracy of the voters’ will in everything from general elections to local elections, from referendum votes to the elections of new HSYK members. We need to really comprehend that, no matter what level it occurs at, to try and claim that when we do not like the outcome of elections because they do not go according to our expectations that the will of the people suffered somehow from ignorance or mistakes is truly not a democratic approach.