The examples you give on the dominant-party system there are ones of whom remained in power for 40 years. 49.5 percent of the elector said ‘you will continue till 2019’ to the AKP. Turkey has its dominant-party system begun and what is it in the horizon? A reign for another 20 years more?
It is not possible to estimate this. Because we don’t know what interior and foreign events will Turkey face in the future. The condition for Turkey to make a step towards a socio-economic structure which would endure a pluralist democracy depends on the release of the pressure of the underprivileged citizens’ weigh on the politics and its replacement by an economically independent middle class. This transformation is not easy and can’t be maintained quickly, it is a process which takes few generations. Among the voters the majority belongs to the block of the underprivileged citizens.
That is those who migrated from rural to the urban and those who never had an acces in rural for a development of the human resources opportunities, and those who could may be employed as an unskilled labourer in the urban but even in that case can’t be employed. This is the greatest block / part of the electorate in Turkey. This part is also extremely conservative, religous, traditionalist and nationalist, and easily be stirred into extremism. AKP is the most successful representative of this critical voter blockade. Till these conditions continue AKP’s political future seems bright. A new part / block of voter with different demands has to be emerged to change this.
What type of demands, for example?
Who would demand establishment of the Rule of Law... Who would demand the Rule of Law? Those who handle administration, investment, trade in accordance with the Rule of Law, those of whom are eager to resolve disputes within the Rule of Law, those whom are working for the market, I mean the middle class.
But in Turkey, there is not yet a proportionally competent (by its roundabout) and politically-independent middle class to endure a democracy and its necessary system of values. Our middle class is weak. In Turkey those we may call middle-class is around 20 percent. And their demands can easily be suppressed.
Is AKP a hegemonist party?
They’re going through this way, slowly. Even Turkey is classified and accepted in the world as not a democracy but a hybrid regime or competitive authoritarian regime. Countries like us where underprivileged citizens having the dominant momentum is more likely to move towards authoritarian regimes, the facts show. Because they can not endure democracy. Will we have an opportunity to endure? I don’t think so. Conditions are not fertile for this. If there isn’t a strong middle class or a strong working class (like it is in Sweden) with their organisations and concerns: democracy can not be endured. Socio-economic base of the democracy in Turkey has problems. Because a strong underprivileged citizens, with the terms of the Marxist sociologists a lumpen-proletariat puts and preserves its weigh on the politics. We don’t have any evidence, whether such a democracy could ever be endured, among the political science researches.
When you say this, if someone tell you ‘This is a mentality of ‘Is the vote of the shepherd and mine is the same?’…
These are scientific facts. What I am explaining is not the thesis on the ‘vote of the shepherd and mine’ dilemma. The critical point here is, what the voter will demand from its representative: freedom, respect to the Rule of Law, a clean politics? or job, nepotism for the relatives, public benefits without any contribution? What I am telling is quite clear. From Aristotle BC 300’s to the 20th and 21st century Seymour Martin Lipset, there are political philosophers who argue, for a formation of a democracy -a strong and politically independent middle-class is necessary. We observe that those thesis can not be falsified.
Turkey doesn’t have a strong middle class, instead of that it has a massive underprivileged citizen block outside the employment sphere. Middle class’s demand is freedom, rights and the Rule of Law. But there isn’t any evidence if the underprivileged citizens outside the employment sphere ever think of the Rule of Law profitable for them, in fact there isn’t any evidence if they’re discontent towards illegal practices, there isn’t any evidence if they have any critical reaction towards corruption, above all.
Why?
Because the environment they live in is not within legality, already. This is a group of whom human resource development is very much low. This mass of people don’t have any acknowledgement of the State of Rights, as well. And within their environment compliance with the Rule of Law is also quite expensive for them. The case here is a mass of people living in the bidonville, working in the unregistered economy and trying to afford the electricity, water needs for free. This mode of living can not have a luxury to demand a state of rights, justice or a governance in land issues, traffic, energy in compliance with the Rule of Law. A state in compliance with the Rule of Law brings an economical benefit. Daron Acemoğlu and James Robinson proves that it ensures development.
But a state in compliance with the Rule of Law is also expensive, you should pay for the electricity, water you use, you should obey the rules of traffic while driving your car, and you should construct your home in accordance with the legal regulations. To endure this costs you should have a skilled profession and an income above this threshold. That is why in the countries where the middle-class is in wide range: democracy works and the economy develops. The problem we face today is this: Without democracy there can not be a state in compliance with the Rule of Law, but Turkey is yet a competitive authoritarian state.
No comments:
Post a Comment