Demokratik mantık ve Demokratik Düzende Siyasi Partiler

In a modern country with more than a few hundred citizens, it is obvious that most decisions concerning the State, its policies, its activities, etc. must be taken by representatives, if only by virtue of the division of labour. But should there also be a place for the direct expression of the peoples' will, for the referendum, in other words? This question opens two options, one of principle, the other practical. The question of principle is classic: is democracy better served by representatives, as MONTESQUIEU maintained in France, or by direct vote of the citizens, as ROUSSEAU maintained? 
Democratic logic favours ROUSSEAU's thesis:
- If the people are sovereign, why believe them incapable of deciding for themselves?
- Elected representatives may have a personal will opposed to that of their electorate: recent examples in western Europe have shown that the answer given by the people directly consulted differed from that of their representatives.
- The referendum frees the people from the supervision of parties. 
Conversely, it can be noted:
- that many political questions are beyond the real understanding of "the man in the street";
- that the real purpose of the referendum is distorted because the mass of citizens regard it as a vote for or against the party in power;
- that a too frequent use of referenda discourages the electorate who can no longer be bothered to vote.
(https://book.coe.int/eur/en/constitutional-law/678-constitution-making-as-an-instrument-of-democratic-transition-science-and-technique-of-democracy-no-3.html)

Demokratik mantık kavramı üzerine biraz düşünelim.

Ahmet İnsel Türkiye'deki siyasi düzenin seçimli otokrasi olduğunu önerdi. Seçimlerin bağlamının biraz fazla bulanıklaştırıldığı bir Türkiye'de deneyimli Birikim yazarının bu tesbiti önemli: yanlış ya da doğru AKP'nin demokrasiyi Türkiye'de toparlayacağından umutlu olunduğu günlerde her eleştiri için eldeki en önemli sayılabilecek cevap seçim galibiyetiydi. Sevgili Ahmet İnsel de o dönem bizzat tanığı olduğu bir tür demokrasi hareketinin ve kurulması umulmuş bir demokrasi geleneğine emek verdiği günlerden bugünkü duruma gelindiğinde "hayal kırıklığının" siyasal partilerden kaynaklandığını öneriyor...

"Demokratik bir hukuk devleti"nde oylama yani demokratik seçimler demokratik düzenin prensipleri temelinde (hukuken de) düzenlenir: (Bugün Avrupa'da demokratik oylama ile referandumun farkı üzerinde duruluyor.)(...) the choice of an electoral system must be based on three types of consideration: - the existing political and social structures and their probable development (this includes the problem of multi-nationality States); - the type of system adopted in terms of the relation between executive and legislature: a parliamentary system has a far greater need for a stable and coherent parliamentary majority than a presidential system (below, No.33); - the interaction of laws concerning the electoral system and the structural effects that the system involves in practice. UNIDEM: 1992

Türkiye için şunu söylemek yanlış olmaz: oylamaya giden süreç otokrat siyasetlerin yolunu açıyor. Seçimli otokrasiyi seçime giden yol üzerinden incelemekte fayda var. Ben şahsen Çin'deki gibi bir tek parti rejiminin AKP ile kurulu olduğunu da düşünenlerdenim. AKP'nin 2002 yılındaki kadrosu ile bugüne kadar ki değişikliklere bakılıp biraz daha incelendiğinde, yeri geldiğinde ANAP'tan, DYP'den hatta MHP'den ve tabii ki Refah Partisinden yetişmiş siyasetçilerin de bakan olduklarını görüyoruz. Bu AKP'nin otokrasi üzerinden de eleştirilmesini(bir demokratik siyaset için) imkansızlaştırıyor, zira çok fazla değişen bir parti.

Seçime giden yolda basının ayrı bir yeri var. YSK, ya da herhangi bir ilgili kurum: basının, siyasi hareketlere ve eğer imkanı varsa toplumun taleplerine eşitlikçi ve hukuka uygun yaklaşımını cesaretlendiremez, destekleyemezse hiç bir seçimin demokrasi adına yapılmasına imkan yok. Zira ortada demokratik gelenek adına da pek bir şey yok.

(Bkz: European Electoral Heritage: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD(2013)050-e )

Kaldı ki burada ihtiyaç olan sadece seçim dönemiyle sınırlı da değil. Daha da kötüsü Türkiye'de partiler üstü gazetecilik diye bir şey var. Partiler üstü gazeteler New York Times hatta Washington Post'u kendilerine örnek aldıklarını söylemekten geri kalmasalar da ne NYT ne de WP editoryal bağımsızlığında belli değerlerin öncelik geldiğini yani editoryal bağımsızlığın belli prensip ve değerlerle sağlandığını, en yolsuz ve manipülatif örneklerde bile, bir kenara atmazlar.

Bizim partiler üstü gazetelerimiz hiç bir zaman böyle olmadılar. Bizim partiler üstü gazeteler, partiler üstü bir hareket olmanın rahatlığını seçtiler, cesaretlendirdiler. Böyle bir basında oylama sonucunda AKP (ya da, CHP) gibi partilerden başka sonuç çıkmaz. Bu partilere denge sağlayabilecek oluşumların yol alabilmesi imkansızlaşır.

Basının en nihayetinde siyasi (herhangi) bir partinin yani hareketin oluşturulabilmesi temelinden siyasi konularda yayıncılık hakkına sahip olduğu prensibinin yorulmaksızın vurgulanması şarttır:

Her siyasi hareket, parti ya da yayınlar yoluyla insan haklarından kaynaklı ancak belli şartlar nedeniyle (başkalarından) farklı "öncelikleriyle" kimlik kazanıyor ya da çeşitleniyor ve demokratik mantık içinde şartlar değiştikçe (iyimser olursak) iyileştikçe (refah vs.) önceliklerin (başkalarıyla) ortak bir zemin bulması gerekiyor.

Bir kere bu kademe yani genele yönelim için hukuk güvenliği, bağımsız yargı ve demokrasiyi önemseyen bir anayasa mahkemesi gerekir ki özel olan öncelikler emniyette olsun.

Her hangi bir parti seçim güvenliğini sağlasın, ekonomi programı ortaya koysun demek: Türkiye'de öteden beri olduğu gibi "halk hukuk düzenini ve refahı oylasın bakalım" demekle aynı. Oysa bu kademede değil Türkiye. Hala değil. Kaldı ki bunlar oylanacak şeyler değil. Bunlar için belli konularda referandum yapılabilir, ancak bu da ayrı bir konu.

-

UniDem Conference "Constitution making as an instrument of democratic transition" (Istanbul) - 08/10/1992 - 10/10/1992 - http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/events/?id=-135

European Electoral Heritage - 10 years of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters - http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD(2013)050-e

CDL-AD(2010)024-e
Guidelines on political party regulation, by OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission - Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 84th Plenary Session, (Venice, 15-16 October 2010) http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2010)024-e

CDL-AD(2002)023rev-e

Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters: Guidelines and Explanatory Report - Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 52nd session (Venice, 18-19 October 2002) in English http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/CDL-AD(2002)023rev-e.aspx

CDL(2015)007-bil

Table on the Method of nomination of candidates within political parties

http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL(2015)007-bil#

Democracy on Transparency and the Rule of Law

"Transparency has been associated with legality and it is a privileged means to fight corruption and a basic premise to achieve accountability. It is an organizational input that helps to improve internal decisions and processes of the public administration, as well as an effective mechanism to promote competitiveness and to enhance democracy and the rule of law.  

The basic notion of the rule of law is that State must comply with a set of norms that must have been properly enacted by a competent authority. However, this is merely a formal conception which does not take into consideration the specific contents of the juridical framework.  

Joseph Raz, a well-known professor of Philosophy of Law in Oxford University, argues that the rule of law goes beyond the idea that the government must be submitted to the legal order. It is a political ideal, a public virtue, and to achieve it the juridical system must fulfil several principles regarding both the specific contents of the law and the judicial mechanisms that allow enforcing it. (Mex., 2002)  

 A substantive concept of the rule of law must translate the ethical values (freedom, equality, justice) and the political ones (participation in public decisions) into a specific legal framework which is the basis of democratic legitimacy. The rule of law must attain a perfect balance between law and justice. As Elías Díaz, a Spanish constitutionalist says, the rule of law is the juridical institutionalization of democracy. (Mex., 2002)   

Transparency is a quality of government performance based on the rule of law, and it means that government information (files, documents, reports stored both in paper and electronically) belong to the people and not to the public officers who elaborate and store it. Actually, public officers have to make sure that official documents are well kept in orderly files so as to have them ready to be released whenever anyone requires them.   

 Transparency allows for public scrutiny over government activity, enhancing a better organized and more efficient public office, as documents at hand help to learn from past decisions that proved to be successful or to avoid repeating previous mistakes.    Transparency fosters State accountability and responsiveness and is the first step to prevent corruption which has proved to be the greatest obstacle to attain the rule of law.  

Transparency refers to the relation between the State and society as it is the means through which authorities inform their constituencies about the decisions they make, the actions that they implement, the resources that they allocate, and about the outcomes of those decisions. Transparency helps to build well-equipped citizens, with better skills to participate in public matters and to exercise their different political, civil and social rights.The aim of transparency regarding society/State relations is to help restructure the public sphere which, according to Jurgen Habermas is the “territory of interactions where deliberation can be articulated positively to give way to public opinion …” The public sphere is not a mere synonym of the State, but one in which citizens become active subjects, fully empowered with rights, liberties and responsibilities, as well.  

Transparency is an instrument that helps to pave the way to restructure the public sphere as a space of a good quality intercommunication and an open and extensive discussion which is a basic ingredient of the rule of law.Ms Jacqueline PESCHARD, Transparency as an instrument of development and the rule of law Fourth Intercultural Workshop - Democracy on Transparency and the Rule of Law 09/10/2014 - http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/events/?id=1886 

Style of Politics

"Presidentialism has important consequences for the whole style of politics. There are enormous varieties of how much power presidents have in the different constitutions. These differences are all very important, but I think that the important thing is that in presidentialism the whole style of politics is different . Now you might say that presidentalism can and has worked. In fact, presidentialism has worked in the United States, but the United States is a very unique political system. It has worked in Costa Rica and, with some qualifications, in Venezuela. One of the characteristics that makes it work in these countries is the two - party system. There is a high correlation between stability and instability of presidential systems and the two - party system. But two - party systems are not very likely to be generated by societies with very complex social structures and with ethnic, cultural and ideologic cleavages. There is no general tendency towards two - party systems but more multi - party systems. " 

(Juan LINZ, Professor of Political and Social Science, Yale University, New Haven, U.S.A. Istanbul, 1992: UNIDEM)   

Recent debates on Turkey's politics is how will the politics take shape as recently AKP and MHP seems to be in cooperation at least in the discourse and CHP being comfortable at its own and also HDP only political representation of the Kurdish political existence left aside with its pros and cons in means of contribution to the democracy, it's a political scene formed within political parties formed only by the organisation of values, dogmas more than policies in means of political movement.

There are of course policy side of each party but policy is very much identified with the political (or governmental) power maybe to gain attention of the both public and also other notions that are contributing parts of the electoral process, yet the supply of policy of the political parties are not shaped by the components of a modern democracy such as individual rights and freedoms but many other notions are in this dynamic yet the only intersection is populist discourse to maintain a democratic policy(!) getting together the public vote and the requisites of the formation of a political party.

There is a fundamental difference in the way the legitimacy of the elected president and of the elected congress are perceived. This was already well described in this text from 1852:  

"While the votes of France are split up among the seven hundred and fifty members of the National Assembly, they are here, on the contrary, concentrated on a single individual. While each separate representative of the people represents only this or that party, this or that town, this or that bridgehead, or even only the mere necessity of electing some one of the seven hundred and fifty, in which neither the cause nor the man if closely examined, he is the elect of the nation and the act of his election is the trump that the sovereign people plays once every four years. The elected National Assembly stands in a metaphysical relation, but the elected president in a personal relation, to the nation. The National Assembly, indeed, exhibits in its individual representatives the manifold aspects of the national spirit, but in the president this national spirit finds its incarnation. As against the Assembly, he possesses a sort of divine right; he is president by the grace of the people."  

This is a quotation from Karl Marx in his Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. It shows that it is not a new phenomenon that presidentialism leads to populism and personalisation of politics. A lot has been said and written about the populism and personalisation of politics in Latin America. But it is not just a cultural characteristic, it is the result of the institutions. Presidentialism fosters that kind of leadership. 

(Juan LINZ, Professor of Political and Social Science, Yale University, New Haven, U.S.A. Istanbul, 1992: UNIDEM) 

Yet I find each leader of the political parties in Turkey quite closer to the presidentialism but the political climate as well may also have allowance to this...

By acclaimed good political scientists here are some further readings:
From Semi-Democracy to Full Autocracy: 'Statist Communalism' in Turkey - Nov 12 2017 

A dead crowd: statist communalism, autocracy and resistance - Nov 21 2017 

Umut Özkırımlı - AhvalNews

One more push, republicans, if you want to be social democrats! Jan 06 2018 

Yahya Madra - AhvalNews 

*

Populus Latin equivalent of the Greek demos (δήμος) is actually quite important fact for political historians and scientists: yet should give some clues about the style of politics in different traditions. 

Style of politics, when confused has impact on, first, journalists but also calls for a reevaluation on the profession for them as well in confusing periods. If the journalists can not endure it, for which I have observed in Turkey, than the public also begin to withdraw from the politics as populus but leave the decision all to the elections as demos, maybe.

Populism is deriving from Latin Populus, may be because in the Roman Empire, policy in the Senate could be shaped and made run by Rhetorics given by the representatives, on which I haven't enough study but those rhetorics were discourses based on a certain tradition. 

I have always found the Greek demos closer to the Indian civilization as classes separated but a mutual decision was obtained through participation, as I say it based on the traits I could find while trying to figure out nothing further, political history especially of those Roman Empire and Greek civilization is difficult to study, but those two styles were different in style but same in purpose, seemed to me.

It must not be forgotten, however, that a Constitution is a whole and that this "whole" must be coherent. Some of the options indicated are doubtless independent the one from the other. For example, a parliamentary system can be twinned with incomplete bicameralism or with monocameralism. But complete bicameralism (equality of the two Chambers) would imply that the Government could be ousted by one or other of the Chambers and this would increase the risk of government instability which militates against the smooth functioning of institutions. Similarly, the voting age can be higher than the age of majority if it is thought that more maturity is required for public affairs than for the decisions of private life. But it would be inconsistent to admit that one could participate in the management of public affairs at an age when one is not judged fit to manage one's own.  

In other words, the authors of a Constitution are not in the position of a reader who buys books which might differ greatly from each other and be of heterogeneous types, but rather in that of an engineer building a machine who chooses parts which can work together. 

(George Vedel, Istanbul, 1992: UNIDEM)

*

I have seen the exposition on Charles II in London. It was an era of restoration succeeding political disrupt in the Monarchy, parliament and country, Charles II maintained a transformation through I would say peaceful means. The most important lesson maybe I would find how Charles II found a way for a restoration by utilizing the arts, but also it was a discovery of an instrument for the shaping of a mutual political will as a Monarch as well as a leader of a commonwealth (republic), during a political uncertainty, not to shape it himself but to construct a base for this.

Today, a republic and a weak and a torn democracy and presidential style politicians, one of the few means we can find for such is journalism. I would wish it would be the arts, literature, society but these are not really established in Turkey, I humbly think.

*

"78. Attaching formal rights to the opposition as such is first and foremost a concept applicable in Westminster Style parliaments, based on first-past-the-post electoral rules, which promotes a system with only two major parliamentary factions – the governing party and the “opposition”. In the British tradition this is sometimes emphasized by referring to the main parliamentary opposition faction with a capital “O”, and even as “The loyal Opposition”, or “Her Majesty’s Opposition”. In the UK Parliament there are a number of conventions and provisions on procedure based on the concept of the “opposition”., for example, the right of the leader of the opposition to a weekly period of questioning of the Prime Minister and a convention that the opposition members chair certain committees of the House."

(...)

"171. The existence of the Venice Commission is based on the idea that democracy can and should be promoted and protected “through law”. Legal recognition of certain parliamentary opposition and minority rights is a core issue in this regard. At the same time, the most important element for ensuring good parliamentary democracy is a tolerant and mature political tradition and culture, under which the governing faction does not abuse its power in order to suppress the opposition, and the opposition for its part engages actively and constructively in the political processes.  

CDL-AD(2010)025-e - Report on the role of the opposition in a democratic Parliament, adopted by the Venice Commission, at its 84th Plenary Session (Venice 15-16 October 2010) 

Siyasal partileri anlamak: Demokrasiye geçiş yolları (Ergün Özbudun)

Demokrasiye geçiş yolları

"Birçok yazar, demokrasiye geçiş yolunun, bağımsız ağırlık taşıyan bir faktör olduğunu, geçişte izlenen yolun, ortaya çıkacak demokrasinin niteliklerini ve istkrarını etkileyeceğini ileri sürmüşlerdir. Stepan, demokrasiye geçişin sekiz yolu olduğunu ifade etmektedir. Bunlardan üçü, savaş ve fetih gibi dış faktörülerin ağırlıklı olduğu demokratlaşma yollarıdır ki, burada bunlar üzerinde durmayacağız. Çünkü bu yollar İkinci Dünya Savaşından sonraki bazı önemli demokratlaşma örneklerini (Batı Almanya ve Japonya'nın işgal kuvvetlerinin öncülüğünde demokratlaşmaları gibi) kapsamışlarsa da, "son otuz yıldır ve görünür gelecekte demokratlaşma örneklerinin ezici çoğunluğu, dış askeri güçlerden çok, sosyo-ekonomik güçlerin anahtar rolü oynadığı örnekler olmuştur ve olacaktır." Geri kalan beş yol iç dinamiklerin sonucudur: (a) Demokratlaşma hareketinin, otoriter rejimin kendi içerisinden başladığı durumlar; (b) Otoriter rejimin, toplumun girişimiyle sona ermesi; (c) Partiler arası sözleşmeler (paktlar); (d) Demokratik reformcu partilerin öncülüğündeki örgütlü ayaklanmalar; (e) Marksistlerin öncülüğündeki devrimci savaş.

Daha basitleştirilmiş bir sınıflandırmayla, dış kaynaklı demokratlaşma dışındaki yolları üçe ayırmak mümkündür. "Reform", yani demokratlaşma hareketinin otoriter rejimin kendi yöneticileri tarafından başlatılarak sonuca ulaştırılması; "kopma", yani eski rejimin şu veya bu biçimde zor kullanımıyla yıkılması; ve otoriter rejimin yöneticileri ile demokratik muhalefet arasında bir uzlaşmayı içeren "sözleşme" ya da "pakt" yolu. Üçüncü demokratlaşma dalgasının ilk örnekleri İberya yarımadasında ve Latin Amerika'da görüldüğünden bu yollar, Linz'in yazılarının da etkisiyle, ulusararası literatürde bile İspanyolca karşılıklarıyla (sırasıyla, reforma, ruptura, ve pactada) anılır olmuştur. Hatta sözleşme yolu da, geçiş sürecinin reforma veya kopmaya daha yakın oluşuna göre, "reform sözleşmesi" (reforma - pactada) ve "kopma sözleşmesi" (ruptura - pactada) olarak genellikle ikiye ayrılmaktadır. Huntington da, çok yeni bir eserinde demokrasiye geçiş süreçlerini, "dönüşüm" (transformation), "yerine geçme" (replacement) ve "yer değiştirme" (transplacement) olarak üçe ayırmıştır. Bu yolların sırasıyla, reform, kopma ve uzlaşma yollarına tekabül ettiği açıktır."

Demokrasiye geçiş sürecinde anayasa yapımı, Ergün Özbudun 
(Bilgi Yayınevi - Şubat, 1993)

1992 İstanbul'unda bir UniDem Semineri ve 12 Eylül 2010 referandumu

"In ultimate analysis, the technique of democracy is the wise and skillful articulation of collective and individual freedoms. Democracy is the right and reason for each and all of us to live and grow together."

Antonio La Pergola

İstanbul - Oct '92

***

"(...) the constitution not only rationalises, but its rationalisation of the political existence of a historical community can only be completed through its political integration. 

Correct understanding of this concept requires a brief explanation. The State exists and evolves in a continuous vital process by which its plural elements - individuals, collectivities, segments, social classes - are reconducted to unity. Such a "combination of all forces and ideas of unification" was called integration by an outstanding German scholar, Rudolf Smend, and he identified it with the "plebiscite de tous les jours" that, according to Ernest Renan, constitutes the Nation. "
-

(...) That is why, historically, all successful constitutional processes were born from a passionate desire of the problem, not only to have a Constitution, but to be constituted. Examples include France (1789) and Spain (1978).

...constitutionalism is a consequence both of the rationalisation of political existence or, in other words, its modernisation, and the simultaneous conscience of being a different country. Modern constitutionalism is a function of national self-assertion of the State in front of imperial domination or antidemocratic autocracy.

Miguel Herrero de Minon

İstanbul - Oct. '92

***

In a sense, democracy is the system in which, in the absence of unanimity, collective decisions fall to the majority.
But as many authors have observed, this function of the majority implies a consensus on the coexistence of the majority and the minority. Those in the minority in a democracy disagree with the majority, except on one point: that all must continue to live together, with the risk for one camp, and the chance for the other, that the minority will become the majority.
In addition, the minority, as a group or as individuals, have "reserves" defined principally by human rights.
Democracy is therefore at once a system in which the majority decides and an "anti-totalitarianism", opposed to the totality of the rules applicable to social life being monopolised by the same man or group of men.

Georges Vedel
Istanbul Oct. '92

Furthermore, totalitarianism does not consist only in the concentration of all political power (directly or indirectly) in the same hands (man or party), but also in the fact that the political authorities claim to control all aspects of the individual's life: his upbringing, his intellectual training, his beliefs, his work, his leisure, his private life, etc.
The struggle against totalitarianism therefore implies another series of "separations": separation of State and private life; separation of State and religion or beliefs in the broadest sense; separation of State and work.
Should one speak of a separation of State and economy? Democracy allows great variation in the relation between the political authorities and the economy: history proves that the democratic State can be more or less active in economic and social matters as a comparison between the United States and Sweden or Norway, for example, would show.

Georges Vedel
Istanbul Oct. '92

http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/events/?id=-135

-

2010 yılına gelindiğinde;

"Hukuk yoluyla demokrasi" için sadece siyasi bir "işaret" taşıyan yasa değişikliği olan referandum (2010) HYSK'nın yapısı ile ilgili değişiklikleri de kapsıyordu ve hemen akabindeki Venedik komisyonu raporunda bu atılımın iyi ve umut verici olduğu ancak eksikliklerin olduğu hatta bunun da normal olduğu asıl meselenin devamlılık ve çaba olduğunu (Venedik komisyonunun da yardımı alınması imkanıyla) belirtiyordu.

-

15 Nisan 2011 tarihli Cengiz Çandar yazısından:
"Anayasa değişikliklerine destek, Venedik Komisyonu üzerinden Avrupa Konseyi’nden gelmişti. Venedik Komisyonu Başkanı, Adalet Bakanı Sadullah Ergin, “20 yıldır ilk kez Türkiye’den bir bakan geldi, gözlerimiz yollarda kalmıştı” sözleriyle destek vermişti." 

Kavramlar, Süreçler ve İlkeler

Biz anayasa ismini kullansak da Avrupa'da Almanya hariç genel anlamıyla constitution'un neyi simgelediğini "institution" yani "kurum" sözcüğü ile beraber daha iyi anlayabiliriz. Con+ Latincede "ile" "beraber" anlamı veren ön ek. O halde tekrar soralım: "Institution" kurum demek ise "Constitution" ne demek?

Venedik komisyonundan Minon'un hikmet incisi sözlerine tekrar kulak verelim: "historically, all successful constitutional processes were born from a passionate desire of the problem, not only to have a Constitution, but to be constituted." Yani, "Tarihsel olarak bütün anayasa yapım süreçleri, anayasaya sahip olma isteğinden değil, "bir arada yerleşme" (constituted) isteğinin tutkusuyla başarıya sahip olabilmiştir."

Buna göre siyasi ya da çıkar eğilimlerini ikiye ayırabiliriz:

1. Bir anayasaya sahip olmak isteyenler.
2. Bir arada yaşamayı, hukuk düzeninde hak ve özgürlüklerin belirlenip anlaşmaya varıldığı ortak bir zemine sahip olmayı isteyenler.