AK Party Must Transform the State Because…
For how long and with what problems can we live without having democracy, which is a common ground for all ideological groups, and a contract that allows the functioning of democracy with all of its bells and whistles? In the past, it was the Feb. 28, 1980 coup, March 12, 1971 and May 27, 1960, but what about today?
Who are the losers and winners? Can we claim that we have attained the target of being a society that has internalized the supreme values of contemporary civilization? Individual errors bind individuals, but lacking the correct perspective about our general interests binds the future and fate of the country, and this is what we are experiencing today. We talking about the plan to finish off the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and Fethullah Gülen ― which Taraf disclosed with great journalistic achievement and which was not denied by military officials ― and it is high time that we discuss the basic question of what interests of an institution that is capable of influencing the fate of the country should be.
For now, the fact that the General Staff launched an investigation into the news story in question and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declared that the government will respond to it as required is a positive development. However, we should note the critical process that awaits both sides. Both the civilian authority and the military authority face the historic duty of launching and guiding radical changes within the framework of their loyalty to democracy. The plan that was leaked targets not only the government, Gülen and his followers, but also democracy itself. The measures against such an immense threat against democracy must be immense ― read: radical reforms.
What we imply is not a test of sincerity, but threats against democracy cannot be eliminated through partial measures. Given the country's interests, it is advised that democracy should be fully implemented, even if this requires facing some griping problems; future generations should be prevented from wasting time and energy trying to deal with these chronic problems. To this end, problems at the structure's center should be dealt with, and radical changes should be made.
The founding fathers of the US placed a priority on flexibility in the US Constitution so that future generations could enjoy change for the better, and this was a result of their strong insight into the future. Today, underlining this concept means responding correctly to democratic expectations. Everyone can be sure of this.
The structure of the military has failed to adapt itself to the requirements of democratic culture and the demands for a professional military for the last 50 years; discussing the leaked documents from this perspective might take us to a certain point. This is really a great loss for the country and a source of concern. Like amendments to the Constitution, the organization of the military, too, must be reformed, which also implies a need for structural changes to the political system.
The general public is exasperated by the political steps that have been taken ― one step forward and two steps back, as Lenin put it. They clearly see that the initiatives that feed on tension and the governments that rely on such initiatives fail to be productive.
The story of transforming the state has remained unfinished
The military's concern for the unity and structural integrity of the country is appreciated, but the fate of the country cannot be left to the military. It is high time that the military bureaucracy return this burden to its democratic owners, and structural changes undertaken to this end will be beneficial not only to the country, but also to the military. Because of the disappointment the general public feels about the news story in question, Erdoğan has asserted that they will tackle the issue. While his statement is important, it should be noted that the general public expects more comprehensive policies. If Erdoğan wants to make his sensitivity toward this issue and his statements about it more meaningful, he must take swift action to draft a new constitution instead of drafting packages of partial amendments. This is because a civilian constitution will be the antidote to the chronic problems we are experiencing.
However, in order to prevent our expectations about the new constitution from ending up in smoke, we must openly discuss where the political authority stands and what targets it has in mind. The most vital questions are: Is the power of the government limited with respect to structural issues? How is it poised with respect to solution-centered policies on structural problems? Has the government set its sights on the maximization of the overall interests of the country or on small calculations that aim to preserve its own power?
The sincerity of the AK Party cannot be doubted with respect to its initiatives regarding the country's administration; it should be hailed as the architect of a silent revolution. However, after the closure case against the AK Party, it entered a period of visible stagnation, a fact that everyone agrees upon. Moreover, despite the fact that Erdoğan stated that they learned their lesson from the March 29 local elections and would act accordingly, the policies implemented imply that this is not the case.
In the past, the AK Party had managed to mobilize the support of the general public by undermining the status quo, but today there is another barrier that must be overcome in order to change the status quo. Having failed to complete the transformation of the state, has the architect of change come to believe that it would be better if it came to terms with the status quo? This is a difficult question that is certainly painful to answer, but nothing can be more painful than postponing the story of change for the country.
What is the greatest threat against the AK Party?
Yes, the charismatic leader Erdoğan vowed to learn a lesson, but what his party is offering today is nothing but a package of constitutional amendments instead of a new constitution. For the masses who expect Erdoğan to promote democracy and freedoms, this package must come as a real surprise. So long as the AK Party abandons its targets concerning political initiatives, the change in its discourse and the Cabinet reshuffle will not mean much.
Will it be possible to overcome the loss of momentum that has increasingly taken hold of the political system through constructive opposition and discursive language? For the AK Party, employing discourse only to deny that they have made compromises with the establishment will not be sufficient because it is now time for a test, and this test requires strategic initiatives.
The ruling party has no time to lose in implementing radical reforms. The sands of time are running low. Another parliamentary election will be held in a year and a half, at most. For this reason, the AK Party cannot make an impression during the upcoming period simply by employing certain tactical policies or by poising itself against different or new political players.
The AK Party will undermine its historic mission if it chooses to poise itself against the small plans of small political parties in Turkey. The AK Party's power and historic mission require the initiation of a structural transformation to make Turkey a leader in its region. Thus, it is expected to take steps to attain this target. Any other move from the AK Party will be problematic for itself.
For some time, the AK Party has been "talking," starting "polemics" with the opposition and needlessly playing into the hands of the opposition with its manner of politics and administration. But, neither the Republican People's Party (CHP) nor the Felicity Party (SP) is the AK Party's rival. The AK Party may create stronger momentum by initiating debates over targets and democratic initiatives instead of engaging in polemics directly with the parties of the establishment.
The AK Party will not be able to point to a lack of time or concerns over possible resistance toward reforms as excuses for its inaction. What will cause trouble for the AK Party in the eyes of the general public is its lack of any intention to implement radical changes. At the least, it should attempt to launch structural reforms. A new constitution, public administration reform, judicial reform and many other critical measures still await a strong show of will.
The plan to finish off the AK Party and Gülen cannot, of course, be regarded as a general accusation against the military, but it is clear proof that Ergenekon is still active and this inevitably makes the government responsible for taking the necessary measures. If the government presses a button for radical reforms, everyone will see that these reforms will gather comprehensive support from the military. But, to this end, the AK Party should look at itself in the mirror and make the necessary corrections to its manner of administration. If the AK Party chooses to take action, this will be a golden step toward saving not only itself, but the entire country from a big disaster. Let us hope that the government can see what we see here.
Ahmet Turan Ayhan is a political scientist.
- Created on .