Culture

Let us put this definition to the test in the realm of politics. Our parties are defined as “necessary institutions of democracy” in the Political Parties Law. However, in the way they are structured and led, they are pure examples of autocracy. This contradiction is exemplified in the age and duration of party bosses. I hardly dare to call them leaders because leaders are cut from a different cloth. They lead change, not strive to preserve the status quo that has proven to be dysfunctional and outdated. Ours, on the whole, play on fears and anxieties rather than propose new forms of government and problem solving. That is why the opposition offers no alternative to the incumbent government when it falters or errs. They only oppose what the government does. This makes Turkish politics shallow in substance and conflicting in character.

Another habit that the party bosses have developed is occupying their positions for almost a lifetime. When they sit on their respective thrones (sorry, chairs!) they tend to change the rules of election and replacement of the party chairmanship. Thus they become modern satraps. Why should they then try to change the system that gives them infinitesimal power and tenure until the end of their physical existence?

Remember the late Mr. Bülent Ecevit; he was hardly able to walk and talk but still remained prime minister and the head of his party. Mr. Süleyman Demirel could only be replaced by elevating him to the position of president of the republic. When Mr. Deniz Baykal did everything to consolidate his position as party chairman, he is on record as saying, “Well, it seems we will be together for some time to come if my health permits.” The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader says little and reads his statements when he does. It seems that not leaving his seat to a younger and brighter person is written among his notes. The only party head who has said “The next elections will be the last of my candidacy” is the incumbent prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. I hope he keeps his word.

The cultural difference alluded to here had surfaced during a conference requested by the youthful students of the Pertevniyal High School in İstanbul from Mr. Joost Lagendijk. One of the questions addressed to him, which I believe was in the minds of the majority there, was about the motives of leaving his prestigious post of European parliamentarian. Mr. Lagendijk, a Dutchman, has served 10 years in the European Parliament, and Turks know him from his co-chairmanship of the committee concerned with Turkey’s accession to the union.

His answer was short and decisive: “I have worked as a publisher for 10 years, and I have been involved in politics a little over 10 years. I have enjoyed both. But it is necessary to make a change if you want to preserve your motivation and creativity.” What he really meant was that if you are immersed in one line of work you become part of it and lose your perception of reality, which is much more complex. Then you cannot be a part of the change that is happening around you. Instead, you become a part of the existing system as it decays and ossifies.

Mr. Lagendijk mentions two more young Dutch politicians, namely Messrs. Camiel Eurlings (36) and Wouter Bos (46) who have declared that they were quitting their prestigious positions to live their private lives with more intensity and candidness. He could not refrain from asking, “Why do Turkish politicians not feel this need?” He also added some advice, that “those who know only one way of interpreting life … would not know what life is about outside the corridors of power. … Only those who do know can run Turkey better.”