Democracy: How to Participate and How Not to
It appears that yet another anti-democratic “action plan” has been revealed. This one, it is claimed, emerged from the pen of a member of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). It apparently aimed to oust the democratically elected government and divide the ruling party.
It also intended to undermine the work of a faith-based civil society movement in Turkey known as the Gülen Movement by making false accusations of terrorism and planting drugs and guns on movement participants.
The evidence is still being investigated; there are claims and counter-claims at this stage. What we know already, however, is that this path is all too familiar to some in the TSK. We, the Turkish public, have become accustomed, though not resigned, to the idea that the military feels a need to protect the "regime" from any government of the day whose taste it does not savor. But this latest plot has an additional edge. In addition to the usual attack on the outer and most commonly acknowledged symbols of democracy, that is, a political party and the government of the day, it also clearly takes aim at a peaceful social initiative known as the Gülen Movement.
Planning a concerted attack on any movement that trains people for peaceful coexistence, a common sense of citizenship and inculcation of mutual respect and compromise means cutting at the root where democracy is developed and consolidated in civil society. But democracy is now the only viable political form in Turkey. People are working to modernize and consolidate democratic institutions in order to build a society where individual rights and freedom are respected and protected. To ensure this, civil initiatives are indispensable; in their activism, they define the limits of a pluralist and participatory democracy.
The projects of the Gülen Movement serve society within the rules of the political system. No matter how their worldview or services might affect the political system, they do not disregard or infringe upon the rules of that system. They do not transgress legal and institutional boundaries. Civil society movements like the Gülen Movement contribute to the modernization of a political system and consolidation of civil society and pluralistic democracy. They alert people to the need for institutional reform. They raise people's consciousness of their rights and the definition of what participatory democracy is and can be. They encourage means and ends that are not confrontational, violent or coercive. They are grounded in reliable information and understanding through education and communication, and in freedom, collaboration and peace.
Yet, for the "action planners," it seems that any effort to consolidate participatory democracy is a target now. They are targeting civil and democratic initiatives because such social action reveals the negligence in the "regime" and the shadowy side of its dealings ― its misuse of office, authority and resources. Undoubtedly, the action plan would serve the interests of the protectionist minority and subordinate civil society to their single way of understanding of democratic ideas and practice. Opposing any culturally diverse understanding, they aim to rule over all institutional and systemic decision-making processes or to alter constitutionally set institutional power relationships as they see fit. To achieve this, they will stoop to all kinds of non-institutional, unlawful interventions in the political system. What is being advanced in this new "action plan" is not based on democratic procedure or political consensus. Like all such previous plans from this group, it is to be realized through partisan and violent means. This presents an absolute threat to the very structure of society. It is anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian. It leads to exploitation, radicalization, violent confrontation and corruption in society.
Political participation in a democracy aims directly at influencing the selection of government personnel and the actions of those personnel within the set legal boundaries and separation of powers. Any effort outside this conventional understanding of participatory democracy is exclusionary and ideological and serves ulterior motives and interests. If those behind this latest "action plan" merely intended some form of political participation, then the place to do this would not be from within the military but from within civil society and its representational room, the national Parliament. If military personnel wish to oppose decisions made in Parliament, to defend specific interests, to attempt to shift power relationships within the political system or to acquire influence over decisions, they must do it within the boundaries defined by the Constitution they claim to defend so ardently. They have first to resign from their military ranks and then participate in elections, or set up, head and participate in their own civil society movements. If the people elect them to Parliament, they can hold power and exert control over political decision-making, make decisions in the name of society as a whole and impose those decisions, where necessary, through public means or state organizations. If the people work with them in their civil society movements, they will be validated and achieve their aims.
These "actions plans" cannot be reconciled with cultural, political and democratic integrity. They are nothing but residue of the fascist and communist regimes of the past.
- Created on .