Category Archives: Uncategorized

Turkey Insight (V) – The first “real election” since 1950 and its aftermath

Better to tell the end of talk from the start. As an elector, tomorrow (10 August 2014) you can vote for whoever you wish. Do not feel oppressed. Rest assured. Because, all the three candidates on voting paper, whose election you are going to process, are real. (09.08.2014)

The true number of parties

What sort of voting paper should voters encounter when they go to the polls in country? Does the number of parties on voting paper has any relation with general political structure of a country and the situation it is in? Arend Lijphart, who has examined thirty six democracies of the World, has reached the following outcome after a inquiry regarding the answers of these questions. The number of parties in a country can only be as many as the number of true issues (or one more at most) in that country.

It is observed that Turkey, in its political history beginning from the Ottomans, has a number of two or three real and non-integrable issues and accordingly, has a base of two or three parties that have correspondence (a valid stock of vote, that is) before the reality and society. This also can be seen in the last period of the Ottomans, in the first years of the Republic and in the election of 1950 (which can be counted as the first democratic election) that Turkey has a number of parties as many as the number of its real issues.

Today, Turkish is marching towards election with a voter structure gathering around the centerline of three main issues. “Muslim Democrats” who are attempting to design a Turkey suitable to their own life style and economy, “ Republican Conservationalists” who are striving to protect fundamental principles of the Republic and every kind of social and public body that they are familiar with and “Leftist Democrats” who are bonding its own exclusion with democratic struggle of Kurdish people who has been fighting against the oppression of central authority particularly during 80s and 90s. Lastly, of course, the fraction excluded from those who are concerned with these three issues and going to express their preferences at tomorrow’s election, the people who believe that they cannot possibly express themselves within the current system of democracy in Turkey. It is obvious that these people see the deep(!) conversations, that they are going to have with those believing that voting at tomorrow’s election is more of a necessity and a national duty (especially for this election) rather than a conscientious struggle, as a problem.

Elections of Turkey…

Upon the examination of elections held in Turkey as of 1950 through their simplification within the context of Democrats and Republicans, we observe the following diagram.

Upon examining the diagram, we see that, in Turkey, vote stock of Democrats (in logarithmic analysis) does not display any variance from band of 50, whereas the votes of Republicans decreases by 10 points from 50 to 40.

It is observed that, after the rightist coup made in 1980, Republicans of Turkey have experienced a considerable dissolution (due to its detachment from a degraded or consumed Turkish left). It can be easily understood from the diagram that conscientious yet coarse calibration of this pro-coup mindset induced only a short-term manipulation, yet never had any effect on Democrat votes.

Based on this, it can be said , by a simple approach, that the Democrats are going to get 50%, the Republicans 40%, and those excluded by the system are going get 10% of votes in 2014’s Presidential election. However, considering the current situation Turkey is in, it should be noted that the outcome will not be materialized that simple.

Election scenarios…

Through a desk-based analysis made by evaluation of the last twenty seven elections in Turkey (local ones included), starting from 1950’s, it is possible to encounter the following chart.

Why Scenario-2? Because tomorrow, Turkey will be experiencing an election to which it is not ready yet. After a long lasting “multi-party” period from which it has concealed its true dissociation,Turkey is going to face an election that includes as many as candidates (parties) as the number of its real issues. A transition from a very recent election and voting paper with a number of parties more than 20, into an election with only 3 candidates available …

What is Scenario-1, then? Under normal circumstances, Turkey can be expected to come by an outcome as follows.

The fact that election results do not change in any circumstances is not an ill fate, it is actually the summary of Turkey’s real situation.

I will share with you what this real situation of Turkey is and the parameters that determine this reality (should the election results in this fashion and if I don’t feel ashamed).

Turkey Insight (IV) – From today to tomorrow, the “main” issue of chapulists

#direngeziparkı, is living a troubled period between two battles it has been fighting and will have to fight tomorrow. Today’s resisters who are defined as “the youth”, will have to discuss how to overcome the issue of making ideas and creating a destination for those ideas, while taking a breath between two struggles. (13.06.2013)

Today : A fight for survival in revelry and gas

Today, lots of opinions regarding what the youth desires are being shared in Taksim Gezi Park. Though either supportive or opposing, almost the entirety of these opinions has some truth and on the common ground of these opinions, a consensus is reached that the youth desires “freedom” above all else.

Although we have excluded the existing violent elements that have been named by the Government as  “vandalism”, ”attempts of marginal groups” , “ opposition’s pursuit outside of ballot box” , “a farce perpetrated by foreign powers (our enemies)” and so forth, this movement of the youth is welcomed by almost the entirety of people (who are aware), except those with radical angles.

Upon perusing speeches of the Prime Minister clear of his tone, this “well-meaning, sincere and environmentally-conscious” youth fraction, is in an “accepted” (meaning undeniable and unignorable) status within social sphere. It is true that we are in an atmosphere where it is said that “As for these marginal groups, the Government may respond in the harshest way; yet do not let these children come to any harm.”. Of course, we wish that too; however, let alone a nosebleed, we are living times in which our children perish due to increasing violence.

What price are the youth paying, then? More importantly, why are they paying this price and what are – they and Turkey, both – going to gain when they pay it? Are they struggling in vain, or will they change some things in Turkey? Yes, they will.

Having displayed a progressive increase throughout the action, the aim and possible outputs of Gezi Parkı movement – not only for protesters but also for all its actors – has reached the point that it is today. The dilemma we are in today actually also stems from the fact that too much meaning has been attributed to this movement than a protest can bear.

Can we say, I wonder, that the youth who carry on the movement right now will return to their homes when they are told that Taksim Military Barracks shall not be constructed? In a truhful analysis, for how many of the hundreds of thousands of people who amass at squares or the people who is watching them on television does this Military Barracks mean anything? At this point, what does it mean even to the Prime Minister?

This is not a sketchy or superficial analysis. This is a question of “ the fundamental”. It also leads to the question of who the true owners of this movement – upon which everyone is attempting to apply and impose their own codes – are.

From the moment when State’s  – a corporate body with all its history – struggle of reckoning with itself and its people was intertwined with youth’s fight for survival and recognition, dissociating these two became almost impossible. Idolized connotations of the square leading back to much older times than these young people’s dates of birth have reawakened all at once. As for this reckoning, it seems that withdrawal of the owners of old codes and dedition of objectives and demands to the youth of new Turkey, is going to take a long time.

The youth gathered at the square today are incapable of indigenising the language of their older brothers dating back to two generations (not much) before them, as they are incapable of deciphering scripts of any Ottoman Sultan or comprehending Atatürk’s Nutuk despite being able to read it by his own words. While it looks natural to some, I find it a tragic situation.

As these youth, deprived of their capability to settle scores with history, try to draw their actions to the present and to their own genuine codes of freedom, they are not getting anything in return, neither from the society nor the State.

Whereas the State – its eyes looking at the square – is reading equivalences of its old codes on these marginal groups and flags, followers of youth are seeking anti-democratic instances that have been occured countless times in interventions by the State.

Everlasting: Struggle for obsolete codes

Actually, except the youth (and a bunch of people who truly understands them or try to understand at least), everyone is focused on protecting obsolete codes that were built upon Turkey’s anti-democratic history, failed to carry on to this day, touching to which is deemed a taboo.

Yet, codes have changed, language has changed, dreams of future for a better world have changed. This happened neither because of advancing technology, nor the power of social media, nor the urban architecture whose pattern has shifted from the natural towards the new and artificial, which had been well known to be stillborn. This just happened!

Turkey is now a country where there are 300 shopping malls (AVMs) in 54 cities, one third of which is located in Istanbul. It is impossible that these young people, who have been experiencing the AVM phenomenon since the day they were born, would deny this phenomenon altogether, even if they wanted to. Yet, this situation surely does not mean that the same youth does not have an environmental consciousness. In fact, we have to admit that their environmental awareness is higher than those who dates a generation back.

The youth might be born into AVMs. However, this situation that we can define as their nature; cannot be a justification for us to complacently accept that the same young people are the architects or avid users of AVMs or, more plainly, “artifical urbanisation” to which a systematic of relations is manipulated.

The youth is searching for exit roads and the seeds of their bright future amongst every kind of (economic, social, urban) architectural strangeness that is shaped artificially and outside of man’s naturality.

Actually, they are rising to a consciousness level enough to know that neither the desire to see Military Barracks erected nor the resistance towards its construction is “their own”. Am I saying it should be constructed? I am not saying that it shouldn’t, either; given I understand all circumferential oppositions. I am just mentioning that the rancidness of the ground of this debate and this rancidness does not belong to the youth gathered at the square.

At this point, I am sure that the analysis I have made will be largely dismissed (by both sides, no less, even at perspective of the youth) through every connotation and every experienced tangible indicator of the square and the movement. However, I for one would like to emphasize the necessity to reconsider (doing so from philosophical aspect) every adrift analysis that is not of “the fundamental” which I attempted to give clues about, that is not even close to “being humane” at universal scale.

What is encountered in Turkey today; is neither a complicated struggle for power, nor a wise manipulation by the government, nor a presumption by social media, nor an outcome of defeating those famous marginal groups through disclosure. It is both none of these and all of them. The movement being experienced in Turkey today is a subject of neither sociology, nor psychology, nor economy (the latter being a big lie). “One who holds a hammer sees every problem as a nail.” says Maslow.

The distant future as a note…

Today, Turkey (the whole world, if you ask me) needs to make a common reasoning and – purified of all codes and reckonings – to take a fresh look at its history of the past two centuries which ruined a civilization that lasted tens of thousand years.

Today, thinking people of Turkey – doing so contained within disciplines of their own, sadly – affirm that a lesson should be taken from this movement. As far as I was able to identify (I apologize if I missed something in this busy schedule), only a few people suggest that the square should take a lesson as well. Of course we should take a lesson, there is nothing wrong with that. While taking this lesson however, should we attempt to come to a conclusion by using every means taught us at school, our situation will be really pathetic.

Today, as human beings, the single and sole need we have is to think. To think as a human. We are on a path which we can travel by means of the pure thought, which we left behind in days of yore. This, however, is not a magic wand. Neither we can stop the movement in the square, nor can we decide on Military Barracks’ fate, by thinking. Yet, after nearly a thousand years, if we start to use our most essential ability – the ability to think – once again and do so faithfully, we can rebuild our future.

We do not have to be destroyed either as Turkey or the world and we do not have to live a future in pain. As mankind, this is not our inevitable end.

We are obliged neither to live in cities full of AVMs (as a manifestation of artificial architecture), nor to increase our population (through excessive evaluations of an old theory of demography), nor to rank amongst G20 (because these are world’s codes of success), nor to enjoy made-up city parks (which are but large flowerpots meaning nothing to the real nature).

As mankind, we must recover the intellectuals of our human history, ones who had seen today before it arrived, those who pointed us in the path of reason and comprehend what they told us.

Turkey Insight (III) – What capulists need: More than a single party

It is apparent that #direngeziparkı movement needs more than the parties we know. However, as understood by followers of the movement, – unfortunately – in intellectual and political sense, there is no other destination, at which goals and future objectives are embodied, than “Gezi Parkı”, which has been forgotten on the margin of Taksim. (09.06.2013)

Taksim and “Gezi Parkı” as a destination

Unfortunately, Taksim Gezi Parkı is merely a destination for today. Taksim Square, which always reflected different meanings for Turkey and was always associated with dark pages of our past, has got a brand-new  addressing once again. For years, Turkish Left has also tried to explain to many ruling parties why it has been attempting to rise at Taksim. Taksim and its vicinity, which has been one of the places at which Turkey’s reckoning with the past is felt most intensely, has gained a new meaning today.

What is the new addresing of today, then? The fifty percent, being Turkey’s new ‘other’, is seeking for intellectual movement and maturation of democratic organization that will facilitate construction of the future at “Gezi of Taksim”. It is living its freedom here, portraying unification and solidarity here, and striving to establish its media and proclaim its voice and representative from here.

This is why that followers of this new public movement cannot leave the park and its environ in emotional sense, even though their logic tells them “we’ll have to lift these barricades some day”, and they are feeling amiss each day they don’t show up at Taksim (or similar addresses that reflect the same movement in other cities of Turkey).

As a plain and sincere ideology (that is, provided it is not confused with acts of violence and is defined as an objective of building an autonomous society structure that defies all sorts of authority), to the people other than those who intend anarchism, it is a romantic approach to carry on the action at Taksim Gezi indefinitely. This romance manifests itself as an effort to transform Taksim Gezi from a protest zone into a modern agora.

Taksim Gezi is being passed into history as a movement that could not be defined by its original purpose and has undertaken an entire public accumulation, the burden of not being delegated. The most solid output of this situation of not being delegated, is People’s Assembly which has been recently established within the same park. Admittedly, however, this public assembly too, should attain a structure through which it will become organizational and yield an output as “voice”, provided its format abides.

Through where are we passing? Where are we?

The public movement of today (yes, despite all my addings, I believe this is a plain public movement, judging by its emergence) will face new whole-new demands tomorrow. Yet, these demands will surely come out of itself, not from outside. By and out of itself !

Taksim Gezi shall clarify its philosophy, mentality and demands tomorrow. This consolidation that is criticised – be it with smurfs’ village joke made by itself or despising ‘marauders’ (chapulists) statement made by its opposite  – , will have to create its own codes.

The man who demanded that election threshold be reduced to one percent (I don’t understand why he didn’t demand for its abolition for good !), the woman who describes herself as everyone in Turkey (to her surprise, dis-identity is not an ideal circumstance), the young man who suggested that education must be readdressed (he proposed the applications in America for it, which comprises a State mechanism) and session leader of the Assembly who asked the all the people to express their own ideas (which is to search for an organizational structure), will face the circumstance of sharing their wishes on a common ground, tomorrow.

I understand how difficult it is for one to try define the time he lives in (especially when he lives within it), as well as how jeopardous it is to define it. However, we all are pieces of our own history in the end, and, in a sense, must write down our own ideas and evaluations through the responsibility of being a piece. The worst thing that could happen to us  – provided that all harm is done to ourselves – is the wrongness of our evaluations. Yet, I can still hear the words of a respectable lecturer back in the first year I entered Istanbul University School of Press and Publication. He said “ Prestige of a journalist is defined by his/her intrepidity to narrate his/her own time; his/her proficiency, on the other hand, is measured thirty years later by the accuracy of what he/she told back then. Perhaps, it goes the same for researchers, too.

Starting from this approach, I would like to suggest that Turkey is undergoing a period of thirty years that is postulant to be recorded in its history.

Phase (1) – Reckoning (Re-establishment and infrastructure, for some) period (2003-2013),

Phase (2) – Period of altering social codes (or period of least common denominators and maturement) (2014-2023) and

Phase (3) – It can be defined as (new) Period of Democracy 2.0 for Turkey (2024+)

As I am trying to explain for the last three days, the second phase, which we are currently at its beginning, will be a period at which the public movement of – fifty percent – will search for a destination (and find it), try to form a common ground with those who come to that destination, strive to represent itself at this destination, even at rates of one percent.

The greatest issue we experience today is that this destination isn’t apparent yet. This new organization (without a nameplate for now) that formed its partisan (I am not using this word in a negative sense) infrastructure and , perhaps, its active delegation at Taksim Gezi and its extents, is currently at zero point. Even if this organization purports itself with one of today’s current parties tomorrow, my evaluation will essentially remain valid. In case that this situation comes to reality, this possible party will not be the same as it is today neither in delegation sense, nor in concept of representation, nor in political style . This evaluation of mine includes every party within and outside of the parliament today.

The impending arduous process : Unification !

The most difficult stage that lies before the other fifty percent of Turkey, is the process of unification that awaits in the aftermath of mass protests. Through applauses, the heterogenous lot assembled in squares is announcing its thoughts of freedom, equality, non-superiority, understanding for everyone and even the idea of embracing the opposing fifty percent, while arraying its “but”s outside of the square and within their own internal rendering.

Is this insincerity? Absolutely not. This is a process of internal reckoning that has already started today, a process of defining a minimal common ground, creating a list of the common, and adjusting the dosage of diversities. The union has begun to form the structure of its own internal democracy, specify the rules of its future mechanism and define basic value systematics and principles of its possibly organizational structure.

However, this process is going to feel the lack of a corporate body during the transmission to nation-wide proliferation (that is, opening the channels of agglomerative participation). At first, this corporate body is going to appear as a disorganized mechanism, yet having a common experience. All components of the structure that shape squares today are going to reassess its organizations, renovate them if necessary, and build organizations should they have none.

Here at this point, the diversities between oppositions, which stand as impediments before the new structure – its state of being agglomerative, as in squares – , will have to produce a common language. Turk/Kurd opposition will have its reckoning on both sides, and soften the radical nationalist attitude. Interreligious understanding will be moved from nonchalance to caring level. Liberalists and statists will reach an agreement on a common and hybrid economic plan – many other headline issues shall be moved from romance into reality.

Tomorrow, on a new day, we are going to emphasize on more tangible possibilities regarding instruments and requirement list for Turkey’s second and third phases.

Turkey Insight (II) – How did these fify-percents come to be?

We are living a new day, on which “well-intentioned” followers of #direngezipark feel worried for well-being of their existence – yet, more sincerely and above than that – feel the fear of a high-dose, massive inner conflict that will spread across the whole country and try to figure out what price is being charged to themselves. As for telling this situation and the future, it may be harder today than it was yesterday. (07.06.2013)


Are we refraining from advances? From our tomorrow? We do, probably because it is natural! In this setting wherein social and common violence exist, where some may even define this refrainment as cowardice, who fears what?

Government >  Upset applecart and loss of opportunities that would have been seized in this troubling setting created through a chain of coincidence – which was not unexpected -… (Because no matter how prepared you are, predicting the next day of social actions is really difficult ! Because fear, among all human emotions, is the most difficult one to manage, particularly when a society feels this individual emotion in a folded and multiplied form.)

“well-intentioned” followers of #direngeziparkı >  the uncertainty among people standing side by side, questioning whether everyone has the same goal with theirs… ( Since almost nobody among these genuine and sincere people has an idea why TTs that start with #diren…  have their foreign language equivalences as #occupy… , instead of #resist… or #free…)

Parties > realization of the social denial and elimination, about which I shared an assessment yesterday… ( Because, when turning from street towards center, it was seen that books in boxes of “break glass in case of emergency” kept for today, were empty!)

Organizations > isolation of this asserted sapid atmosphere through withdrawal of public support… (Since, it is known that pre-republic, in other words, eastern – and Ottoman – type codes of freedom that exist within principal codes would never allow a western-type riot!)

Disarmed conservatives > that this , perhaps the last, opportunity has slipped from grasp… (Since it has been understood that, sounds of “come and save us” will never be heard from this lot again !)

And to me, above anything else;

The People > Everything ! (Since the sole asset of this well meaning people – which, unfortunately they got only for short intervals, more or less – is an atmosphere of social reconciliation and peace!)

Surely, Turkey do not need a period of fear during the eve of its transmission to democracy phase. Turkey has the power and prudence to get it off its chest through reasoning, idea and civilized reckoning. The youth of today deserve that it should made possible, at least.

Fifty percent’s path from legitimate ground to chapulism…

In fact, Turkey was not divided in two by inordinate implementations and controversial manifests of its State. Turkey had been divided already. Moreover, this dividedness is not perceived as a threat in any modern society. Because it is not an irregularity for a society, although having common national objectives, to be divided in at least two (and even more, if possible) different points of view. However, as we all know, we experience this natural situation in a society that even so-called academician rectors “cannot fathom”.

So far in Turkey, a process in which one side that lives an antagonism (both artificial and unreal) within itself has created its objector, while determining its least common denominators. This circumstance that we are not yet ready for and define as irregularity in our own way, manifested itself especially in certain coalitions of post-80s.

Although this had been experienced many times before, especially in the February of 2001, when political wing of this antagonist union effort threw a Constitution booklet at term’s President’s face, it understood on legitimate ground that how tougher its work was than that of the opposing fifty percent.

It did understand, however, neither it made any intellectual argument in this respect, nor did embark on a search for solution. President of that period, on the other hand, was not aware (I think) of how his half-populist, half-reflexive demeanor had deferred the future of Turkey for some two decades. What did interest rate lobby (!) did? Apparently, it existed back then as well, and reacted in the same way it does today, of course.

Surely, tutelage was having one of its most transcendant times in that period, on top of it, this was when this structure that is striving to congregate had to seperately define itself in the position of unconditional follower of this tutelage in its own way , or it had to define itself as such at least. On the other hand, the opposing fifty percent was living a #direntayyip period through an imperatively historical opportunity, which was – although not violent – as oppressive as today’s #direngezi.

What happened next? The side that has the same code with that of the first Progressive Republican Party – starting from 2003 – went through its noviciate, journeymanship and mastery stages and ascended with all its glory through – as they put it – the public support they have gained.

Notwithstanding, the antagonist union at which the Constitution was thrown, diverged – despite using the same code – , disconnected from the public and delved into small-time ballot box and chair calculations. Falling under the spell of its small and narrow-spaced fortresses, which was definitely not originated from its own performance, but attained through natural processes, it started to interpret what happened as an ascension and return. Yet, what happened there, was a downfall, likes of which has never been seen in the living history.

The downfall that this union went through, has reached to its nadir soon after the Republic meetings and led to a point which is very difficult to reverse from. And at this point, this union’s dreams of rulership have been buried within depths of the same meeting grounds by the very large masses of people it had collected without even showing an address.

Please remember, in consequence of these large-scale  meetings, each of which were larger than tenfold of today’s Taksim, the people faced with one of the longest voting papers of its history and stepped into a brand-new continuum by shattering its will into pieces too small even for cats’ liking.  And then, the big painful period of solitude…

Fifty percent of this day, has sought its own address until ten years ago, not much. It has followed alliances, missed Erdal İnönü, attempted to proclaim a mayor as its leader and tried many other ways. However, in the outcome of these pursuits, they have found neither the party nor the leader they sought. While watching the development of its opposite counterpart with envy, it looked for a legitimate destination that would represent it on the same plane. Yet, it couldn’t find. Eventually, one of these two fifty percents started to live a period whose destination and future is determined, whereas the other fifty percent became chapullers.


How are the fifty percent , that is in the position of Turkey’s “other” today, going to find a destination for itself, who are going to show this destination to it? For the moment, nobody. In order to show this destination (should a dramatic change occurs in the main line development), an organizational structure, which is wanting in Turkey, must be developed. The other fifty percent shall turn to its own destination; provided that lobbying is established– which does not sound good by name – on the grounds that it is not perceived as a company or a similar organization, but a politically corporate structure.

As I stated yesterday, lobbying structure which will – barely mature – within a continuum of at least two elections, will make possible that these two fifty percents of Turkey govern the country by turns. However, this should not be perceived as an expectation and desire, but a ‘current situation’. This new system will rule out a considerable part of popular sovereignty (at least twenty percent) in the capability of representation in parliamentary system, as it is expected from the voter who is not yet ready for such a system and also cannot abandon old election traditions, which is a pity.

Under this new circumstance, representation of any sovereign element both within and outside of parliamentary system will be provided by lobbying establishment, given that its cost will be determined by its market.

From this point forward, it is necessary to note that people do not have to live with lobby elements of commercial purpose. It will be made possible that civil society organizations – which may be effective in political arena as actors of Turkish-type solutions to be provided for lobbying – communicate the maturity of legal political action organisms and the demands of sovereign element they represent.

And for that, it is obvious that the other fifty percent of today must form its own legitimate ground, before it is too late.

Turkey Insight (I) – Will fifty percent arise from this lot?

If, #direngeziparkı, is not a revolution – which certainly isn’t- it is quite difficult to tell today what will arise from this lot. However, as we stated before; Turkey, who progressed in middle east question, has from now on started to live its true issues and face them and its future, while settling scores with the past. (06.06.2013)

How and why did we come down to this day?

Perhaps our greatest issue, particularly for the last three decades, is that all issues of Turkey was oppressed, packed into a certain issue; and all pre-existing economic, social, political, cultural and psychological indicators were attempted to link to this addressed issue.

If Turkey’s economic situation is bad, the problem is clear; if it has social congestion and its fundamental rights and freedoms are in pawn, the problem is clear; if its politics, tutelage and cultural demands are under pressure, the problem is clear again. That is why neither EU has taken us in, nor we have any international reputation left.

Because this was the easiest way. This apparent evaluation was sold so easily that this issue was accepted even by its addressees and victims, it was lived by accordingly and demands were deferred accordingly.

Yet, this problem created by a deliberate and systematic policy of disagreement and fueled by blood every day; was in fact used as an efficient tool to create a profile of society bereft of pondering its main issues, making ideas regarding these issues, deprived of their capability to organize wisely and productively – or more precisely, convinced of self-abandonment –.

With its large masses, this societal stature cleansed of thinking and evolved into a lifestyle of submission was perceived as ready to accept any kind of “amicable and modern” lifestyle without question. People, indexed to afford from liveable, financially scaled architectural pool of freedom to what they are able to afford, was also served a wide range of diverse lifestyles. They became able to afford the lifestyle they desire within structures seperated by walls at various measures of square-meter, ranging from villa to a small apartment.

However, this new structure had to have a variety of rules, of course. This new society, which moved from class mentality into categorization would be more convenient to get dissociated primarily according to ideological and then cultural differences, income statuses and even occupational position. In this new architecture, it would not be fitting for an employee to reside in the same apartment block, live in the same neighborhood and to shop from the same shopping centre with a director, even if the two work in the same company.

Surely it may sound primitive to you, some of you may even think that I mention about caste system. No. Am I saying that this is antidemocratic? No.

In fact, I mention about reconstruction of a society, which is being attempted to transfer into sense of new democracy and peaceful community belonging to the new world system. I mention about the throes of creating a society fit for the future to which Turkey – by its structure and through choices made by its institutions – is being inevitably transferred.

Where is Turkey heading to? What is the future holds for Turkey?

We now live in a country whose government requests for three children from its citizens. An artificial but beautifully glamorized world for everyone is being created for the children to be born, in which, collective housing structures are being erected as modern shanties; disconnected enclaves are provided where they will feel free in every respect; health care is covered at a low cost – even if you don’t like it – ; an elective educational system which they can leave at a point according to their skills is presented; roads, bridges, tunnels and subways are built in order to provide their safe transportation; thematic shopping centres are constructed where they can have fun before going home.

This beautiful world has its prices, of course. Payable, easily dispensable, small prices. (1) First of all, to abandon a self-producing architecture. To move from alive, naturally complex cities into modern, neat cities where streets are very clean. (2) To gladly and unwittingly like the approved culture instead of creating the city’s own. (3) To relinquish all kinds of social production and turn towards all out social consumption and (4) instead of making politics of oneself, to choose one of the alternatives presented, whose positional templates are prefabricated by the system according to their differences – differences that do not pose systemic threat – .

Turkey has already an alternative that is liberal-democrat, eliminates tutelage, establishes economic prosperity, brings liberty – doing so by starting from the most mistreated of the last 60 years no less, then making way for the victims of the last 30 years – and presents the blessings of peaceful atmosphere.

Only a single part of this final picture remains: A decent opposition!

In other words, “the other alternative”, which must have a systemic place among what are to be presented. So this opposing republican must be conservational and hawkish. It must value nationalism rather than economy, advocate to all past values and overemphasize – with the most radical sentiments – the superiority of Turkey in the international arena.

A delicate experiment : Ak Parti is seeking its opposition!

This opposition, as it is seen, will not arise from this lot. Yet, this lot has shown us that a fifty percent can arise from it. The problem is, who will have this fifty percent?

Two assessments regarding the subject must be seriously reminded. (1) According to the first one; it was already obvious for a long time that the existing opposition in Turkey could not meet – its designed future and social demands – the needs of Turkey. (2) The other assessment is, as Turkey’s history of democracy shows us, that strong right parties fall into a rapid decline, after they pass the critical threshold of fifty percent. Besides, this decline also leads to long-term – and sometimes acutely discontinuous – processes of weak governments and coalitions.

Yet, economy of Turkey, with all its assets and investments, from now on does not have the luxury of having a decline once again . This decision – which is not mine, as you see – belongs to the system that has been established and , with its foreign investments, is still being established in Turkey.

The system; having determined its investment areas, started to establish industrial facilities, planned out the energy requirement of these investments and embarked upon their establishment, defined the employment structure it needs, sowed the seeds of information society; has already chosen democracy as administrative system all the same. Is system some people? Definitely not. It is a circumstance! Who the actor is (or actors are), is another matter of debate.

Today, an official mouth of Turkey said “It has become apparent that Turkey has no proper opposition. Otherwise, tensions would not reach at this point. Perhaps the reason that tensions has come to this point is because that our citizens cannot see the political party that reflects their opposing emotions and senses.

That’s right. Today, Turkey does not have the power for tomorrow of the protests it experienced. The most unbelievingly chanted slogan by every “chapulist” (including myself) in context of ‘pure economy’ and ‘absolute political will’ – purified of ideological and cultural demands – is “Hükümet istifa” (Government resign). Then, which government will take its place?

As for what this lot can do with the existing opposition, which they genuinely deny and exclude, the same official mouth replies as follows: “… I believe that a political party established by these fellow activists will improve democracy…”

Of course, I left main assessments at which some of you will get angry, to the end!

Today, in Turkey, it is apparent that the Government has eliminated the entire inadequate opposition through a process that it believes it has got through “smoothly” (with plenty of tear gas, yet with little blood). Meanwhile, during the execution of this –invaluable elimination –;

(1) the already acquired fifty percent has been gained indefinitely as a disintegrable whole (may variate about 3-5 points),

(2) Its own life model and those who embrace this model has been infused – with a social consensus of one hundred percent genuinity and sincerity –,

(3) The opposed fifty percent has been successfully transformed into block vote (takes a continuum of two elections at best)

(4) Tolerance range of the opposed fifty percent has been determined, their sensibility and good-will messages have been received (in other words, their means and levels of happiness have been determined)

(5) How the outcomes of social attempts can be harmful for public investments, economic life, morale and motivation has been memorized (albeit with tear gas) and,

(6) All marginal elements have been unveiled.

In my opinion, systemic message has been received as well. Although the names do not matter, it is wise to be prepared for a presidential election which, after two elections at most, is going to take place between two parties. I wish continuation of positive outputs of this ongoing action and a good future for us.

An Evaluation on Modeling and Design of Political Researches

The critical point in a research is actually its modeling and design in a way capable of incorporating the mass who is the addressee of the subject researched. Throughout every phase of research, from general to specific, the factor “addressee-ness of the question” should be paid attention.

Stuart Sutherland, in his book “Irrationality”, defines the state of being more influenced by antecedent elements than alterior ones as “primacy error”. This finding plainly suggests how careful one should be during the phase of determining statements, which is an important component of research.

Difficulties that may arise in modeling and design of research…

As is known to all, there is a process commonly followed in works of research. This process starts with defining the problem of research. Then, the arrangement of statements is made, which can also be considered one of the preliminary works. Statements define what do we search, and through which means and techniques do we perform the search during implementation phase. Statements are also acceptances that facilitate wise use of research sources and limited time.

In order to answer the question of research, statements that enable us to inquire every kind of phenomenon that constitutes this question are expected to be built wisely, with effective question clauses present. At this point, oral and written background that we may roughly define as literature, that is, all preceding works the information gathered from those become our primary helper. Besides, regarding the subject of a research, particularly when making a social research; social dynamics, reactions of the community to a similarly antecedent phenomenon, and the way of interaction with this phenomenon should be counted among our primary information. Namely, in Sutherland’s words, ‘background elements’.

It is clear that a mistake made at the initial stage of a research, may affect the entire research. “Primacy error”, which is likely to be made at stage of determining statements and plotting of the research – and affects the entirety of research both content-wise and technique-wise -, may lead us to a conclusion far removed from the data we aim to find. This is especially the case when antecedent information regarding research subject is insufficient or we are not competent enough to evaulate it.

A design error may also lead to deviations at stage of determining inquiry headlines of the research. It is obvious that during work, we are going to be inclined to query the elements that we assume related to the phenomenon researched, and evaluate these together with the answers they will bring. However, we can make several “small” mistakes in the process of selecting these elements, which is one of important mistakes made during design phase. Provided that these mistakes are isolated to their own within a research, we might not face too dramatic results. Until when? Until when these elements, by the nature of research, create antagonist effects – at every turn – upon other factors that “should be actually included”.

Inaccurate elements involved in the process, starting from the phase of modeling and design – and even from the moment the idea of research has been shaped within researcher’s mind – , will continue to exist in an extremely hidden fashion, deeming themselves meaningful until the moment that they can become effective at occurence of illusion.

Virtually, the antagonist elements that should not exist in a research; may hinder the identification of research’s phenomenon, the ability to create consequences, keep respondents from focusing on the main phenomenon and come up with answers accordingly. Or worse, they “may not”. In this case, they may block both the identification of research’s phenomenon and the focusing on it with every element. In a circumstance like this, we may even fall under “illusory correlation”, which is another common mistake, made through irrationally combining the data we have in hand.

Yet, better to point out that there are ways to be rid of from both cases of mistake through research. By obviating the harms that come with previous data or wrong links, researches that enable the obtainment of data to form a ground to get real information about phenomenon, are made.

As a research phenomenon : Political elections…

The abovementioned mistakes of modeling and design are prevalent for almost every research. Exceptionally, in explanatory researches where researcher has not much antecedent information about phenomenon, the purpose is to define the main components of phenomenon, doing so independently from antecedent information. This is why, in this case, researcher holds his preventive reflex as heightened as possible towards the possibility that every element may create an antagonist effect.

Problems that I mentioned above can often be seen in political researches made at any sequence – that is, time period – in order to foresee the possible political preferences of community.

In this article, regarding political researches, it is good to suggest that we are not dealing with deliberate behavior that stems from intentional use of the manipulation effect resulting from public sharing of research results or researcher’s engagement with any political interest group or a party. It is always possible to evaluate this kind of mistakes – which are outside of research discipline and not methodological and technical, but criminal – in another article.

In political researches – particularly in pre-election researches – , it is a first-priority necessity that social provision of the next election should be defined, to which phenomenon of society’s past experiences it corresponds – when itself is evaulated as a phenomenon – should be known, and boundaries of the research should be assessed according to this sense. Besides, foreseeing the sequence that society is in and the political culture level – that is, the ability to unbundle elements of phenomenon –, is of critical importance in order to carry a reliable research.

As for misty spheres such as Turkey, where political development process is developed by all actors of politics in an accelerated fashion, researchers must make more qualified researches in this respect. Following plain handling of phenomenon, the direction of development that might be evaluated as antecedent input  and today’s dynamics  that enable correct determination of elements, should be thoroughly analyzed. In fact, the most correct way to approach for a researcher, is to genuinely evaluate his/her competence in him/herself and get support from theoretical research, which is considered remote from the practical.

A more effective way to overcome these difficulties,  – as I stated above – is to handle the phenomenon plainly. Thus, the research and the researcher can evade the inclusion of elements that may create highly antagonist effects, to some extent at least. At this point, even if the researcher may think he/she can get rid of these possible effects in the process of analysis – and even if he/she is actually capable of that – , he/she has no assurance that these effects won’t have any function during the conduct of research. Without underestimation, the possibility should be considered that these components, bearing the risk of deviating results to an abnormal state – and foreesen to be manageable later–, may show their effects starting from the addressee during the research. It is a theoretically proven acceptance that observation influences the event observed and the way it occurs. Therefore, the observer – the researcher, that is – should accept as a principle, to affect the observation as minimally as possible.

Particularly in political researches, during the observation – made independently from the instrument of research used – , work should be conducted clear of components that may cause the addressee to get away from phenomenon, or get misguided in a fashion that will have the addressee influenced by factors that should have no place in phenomenon’s way of realization.

As another mistake in political researches – in all sorts of research, actually –, having the basic analyses made by the addresse, assigning the addresse to provide a rational internal consistency with charges of question which form ground to analysis, will multiply the negative effects of the abovementioned “factors that should have no place”.

It should be re-stated that tendency of orthodox researchers – independent from technological modernity of the instrument they use – to lay the need for data required in analysis they are going to make on the addressee in a most rough way, is their most conspicuous and result-affecting issue especially in political researches.

Starting to work under the assumption that the addresse is rational and will keep his/her self-consistency unaffected from observation factors throughout the research, will cause the researcher to face a data set which he/she is going to have difficulty to understand. Yet, it would be better for a researcher to foresee the irrationality (not counting ideological preferences) and predilection to produce unorthodox data and adopt an instrument of plain design in a way to avert it.

As I stated above, in political researches or, more specifically, election researches; irrational and unorthodox tendencies that may trigger in the addressee with a small precipitation can be averted by counterbalancing them or through a concentration that will never provide a basis for it at all.

Providing the addressee with the information of what is being researched, having the answers focused on phenomenon’s core and basically purifying them of the analysis made through phenomenon’s subfactors which are the problems of the theoretician, will enable more clear results based on analysis of the data.

In Turkey, it has been seen in many researches made prior to Presidential election held in August 2014, that the effects of these modeling and design mistakes were experienced and estimations made my bany researchers fell far from realized values. In an example where the abovementioned effect of  “taking the addressee away from phenomenon” was characteristically cultivated; following a charge of questions in which the addressee was distracted from Presidential election and focused on the last local elections held; the estimated vote rates of candidates obtained by asking people’s opinions about Presidential election, are as follows: Recep Tayyip Erdogan 58% (reality: 51%, deviation: 7%), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu 30% (reality: 38%, deviation: 8%) and Selahattin Demirtaş 12% (reality: 10%, deviation: 2%).

Here, the researcher actually asked the addressee “You are familiar with the results of previous election. Based on that, how should the electors vote?”, instead of asking “Who are you going to vote for?”. Because the addressee is seeing the research as a whole and , rather than his/her own preferences, is seeking a way out for the irrationality of society and him/herself.

The result: Is it possible to predict political results through research?..

Short answer: Yes… Where it is known that even an atom, which is expected to adhere to basic laws of the universe, can show schizophrenic propensities and, according to physics’ famous double-slit experiment, can develop behavior through observation; a researcher, when making an observation regarding any phenomena, should make a modeling and design that will minimize his/her manipulation (technically speaking) on the addressee.

In case that a research is considered to be solely comprised of field work and the answers coming from the addressee and the statement is accepted as a fact whose rationality and analysis is not required, it is inevitable that the researcher and the research will yield deviational results.

Through a research work in which fundamental principles – of research discipline and other disciplines that it takes support from – that should be assessed at logical scale are utilized in a plain manner; it is possible to form a data set that will enable the prediction of political elections. At this point, however, the researcher must perceive the research – throughout background, conduct, and sequel (analysis) phases – as a holistic work.