TURKEY: Hegemony or Democratic Participation?

In light of the recent moves taken in Turkey against the AK party, in which the AK faced challenges to its legitimacy that arose from claims that it is attempting to erode Turkey's secular tradition, the following article provides stimulating commentary. - Editor


Hegemony or democratic participation?

Source: http://www.zaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=148282

Judicial moves against the democratically elected ruling party, former high-ranking military officers' leadership of gangs and organized crime, and talk of yet more coups; in the claims and counterclaims, outside observers of the Turkish political scene must be wondering what the outcome of these events will be -- the continued hegemony of the protectionist elite or the triumph of democratic participation?

The Turkish political system has long been subjected to various degrees of internal manipulation through a structure of dominance in social relationships. This imposes constraints within the system and leads the protectionist interests to enact draconian measures without clear public support.

Those representing protectionist interests assume control over the rules and mechanisms of decision making itself as if this is their exclusive privilege. In the views reflected in the "Action Plan" leaked from the military we see how they are reluctant to give up their tutelage of the masses, even though they have had hardly any relations with them, in truth. For the protectionist elite, any initiative that does not originate from amongst them and any attempt to shift power relationships within the political system or to acquire influence over decisions is either a threat, a matter of crisis for the regime or a national security issue.

The problem, then, is how to give a precise definition to the parameters of pluralist participatory democracy. Undoubtedly, social relations influence such participation in both directions. From the perspective of the protectionist ruling groups, political participation serves to confirm the priority of their own interests and to secure the subordinated consensus of other social groups; participation takes place within the confines and rules determined by their dominating system, thus -- to a greater or lesser extent -- promoting their interests. To them, the subordinated groups participate politically so as to increase their influence in the decision-making processes or to alter institutional power relationships. They therefore are always more or less excluded from involvement in decision making, and their efforts are seen as non-institutional. The protectionists assume that social, cultural and political representation in Turkey, as well as the identification of any societal problems and their solution, is their sole and exclusive prerogative. This is, again, best seen in the Feb. 28 process and the Şemdinli and Ergenekon (Turkish Gladio) cases and in arbitrary impositions on faith-inspired projects and civil society; it was also observed in the constant vetoes exercised by former President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, in the baseless insistence on the quorum of 367 during the presidential elections and in the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) closure case.

These counter-mobilizations against participatory democratic acts and institutions were not based on democratic procedures or political consensus but were and are realized through ideological interpretation. The protectionist system propagates itself and permeates daily life and existential choices. It filters and represses some demands by presenting them as an absolute, existential threat to the very structure of society. When it cannot compete with any alternative in argument, action and services, it simply assimilates any alternative under the familiar rhetoric of threats to the regime, or some variation thereof.

Despite the fact that their interpretation and counter-mobilization is anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian, they attempt to legitimize their acts by reference to events and to exploit division, radicalization and tension in society. Their true self-interest resurfaces at different conjunctures as improprieties, corruption or concealment of other vested interests. One way for protectionist actors to seek a reduction in the risks involved in a decision is to secure a preventive consensus through the use of ideological manipulation. This preventive consensus usually appropriates the name of "Kemalism."

Protectionists implement decisions according to the practical effect of the particular forces and interests intervening in the implementation process. They exert direct pressure on administrative and governmental bodies to secure an advantageous application of any new ruling. They do not represent their interests through transparent replication. Instead, they set boundaries and determine both the potential and limits of action within the system. Their coercive character and decisions were not a functional necessity founded on consensus.

This produces a closed political system in which the principles of law, democracy and social justice can be abandoned, but the most sensitive principles -- those of the republic, secularism and national security -- are bound up tight and exploited. This understanding or notion of democracy runs into problems because, as Fethullah Gülen stated: "The world is a culturally diverse place and no single group, nation or culture has the monopoly on democratic ideas and practice. … Democracy, though it still needs to be further improved, is now the only viable political form, and people should seek to modernize and consolidate democratic institutions in order to build a society where individual rights and freedom are respected and protected. … If we are to proceed to an even more perfect democracy, that can again be achieved through democratic processes." Certainly not through protectionist organizations and their clandestine efforts, such as Ergenekon.