Tag Archives: turkey

Dünya tarımının gelişimi ve Türkiye’nin geleceği…


Türkiye bölgesi ve dünya için, ivmeli gelişim yaşayan önemli bir ekonomidir. Bu gelişimin yalnızca teknolojik modernizasyon, sanayileşme ve kentleşme başlıklarında ele alınması sadece Türkiye için değil, aynı zamanda dünya için de büyük bir kayıp olacaktır.

Dünyada, özellikle son iki yüzyıllık süre içinde, tarım alanında yaşanan eşitliksiz gelişim, bugün yaşadığımız bazı global sorunların temelini oluturmaktadır. Elli yıl öncesine kadar, bu eşitsizlik sadece tarım alanı ile ilgili gibi görülürken, günümüzde genel siyaset ve ekonominin hemen her alanında kendisini hissettirmektedir. Bugün, mevcut eşitliksiz duruma bir de iklim değişikliği maddesini ekleyerek, dünyanın kendisini beslemesi sorununun derinleştiğine şahit olmaktayız. Günümüzde dünya, hem miras alınan tarım bölgeleri arası eşitliksizlik sorununu hem de tamamını birden etkileyen iklim değişikliği sorununu çözmeye çalışmaktadır.

Tarımın geleceğini sürdürülebilir şekilde güvence altına alan, dünyanın sağlıklı ve iyi beslenen bir gezegen olmasını sağlamayı hedefleyen çalışmalar büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmaların sadece bilim başlığı altında ele alınması ise sonuca ulaşılmasında yeterli olacak gibi görülmüyor. Tüm çalışmaların ekonominin ve siyasetin hakim kurum ve yapıları tarafından da – hem de global çapta – desteklenmesi kaçınılmazdır. Tarımın geleceği, ne bilimsel çerçevede ne de ekonomik ve siyasi anlamda o meşhur görünmez elin zaman içinde düzeltebileceği bir konu değildir.

Dünyada tarımı değiştiren önemli gelişmeler

Dünya genelinde 16. yüzyıldan 19. yüzyıla kadar geçen geniş bir dönemde yaşanan birinci tarım devrimi – birinci sanayi devriminin de yapısal değişim dinamiklerinden etkilenerek – tarım üretimi ve üretkenliğini neredeyse iki kat artırmıştır. Bu dönemde tarımsal üretimin yapılış şeklindeki anlayış değişikliği, eş zamanlı siyasal, ekonomik ve sosyal değişimin de zorunlu yönlendirmeleri ile dünyada ilk tarımsal eşitsizliğin başlamasına neden olmuştur. Dünya üzerinde kimi tarım alanlarında üretim ve verim artışı söz konusu iken, kimi bölgelerinde bugün geri kalmışlık olarak tanımladığımız ekonomilerin oluşmaya başlamıştır.

Bu durumu etkileyen ikinci gelişme ise daha yeni bir dönemde 2. Dünya savaşını takiben gerçekleşmiştir. Tarımda özellikle hakim ve ekonomik mübadele değeri olan seçilmiş ürünlerin oluşmasına neden olan ve ironik olarak “yeşil devrim” olarak adlandırılan bu ikinci devrim ise, güçlü ve güçsüz ekonomilerin oluşmasına net bir biçimde etki etmiştir.

Bu birbirini takip eden iki gelişme, uzun yıllar tarımsal nüfusa ve onun eko-sosyolojik habitatına etki eden dar bir konu olarak ele alınırken, bugün ise içinde bulunduğumuz dünyanın ana biçimlendiricisi olan son derece etkin bir dönem olarak analiz edilmektedir.

Tarımsal mirasın ekonomik etkisi

Bugün şu konuya dikkat etmemiz gerekmektedir. Dünyanın güçlü ekonomilerinde tarımsal üretimin ve tarım ekonomisinin gelir oranlarının, güçsüz ekonomilerinden daha yüksek olduğu gözlenmektedir. Bu tesadüfi bir durum değildir. Yani, günümüzün güçlü ekonomileri sanılanın aksine tarım ekonomisini bırakıp sanayileşmeye ya da teknoloji alanına daha çok önem vermiş değillerdir. Aksine bu güçlü ekonomilerin güçlerinin tarımsal kabiliyetlerinden geldiği anlaşılmaktadır. Hem de yalnızca bugün için değil, geçmişin mirası olacak şekilde.

Mazoyer ve Roudart’ın dünya tarım tarihi üzerine yaptıkları detaylı çalışma, tarım sistemlerindeki değişimin ve bu değişimden hareketle tarımsal üretimin artı değerindeki eşitliksiz dağılımın, dünya ekonomisinin bugünkü durumunun oluşmasındaki etkisi net olarak ele alınmaktadır. Tarımsal sistemlerin üretim ve artı değer farklılaşması ve bundan hareketle tarımsal nüfus üzerindeki eşitsiz etkisi grafikte net olarak görülebilmektedir.(1)

Buna göre, özellikle Türkiye gibi gelişen, gelişmekte olan ekonomileri için – tüm diğer teknolojik modernizasyon, sanayileşme ve kentleşme başlıkları kadar – tarımsal gelişimin sürdürülebilir şekilde sağlanması başlığının da ciddiyetle ve kalıcı sonuçlar üretecek politikalar geliştirilmesi şeklinde ele alınması kaçınılmazdır.

İklim değişikliği – felaket mi yoksa son şansımız mı?

İklim değişikliği ve bu global soruna karşılık alınacak önlemleri içeren tartışmalar atmosferi; dünyadaki eşitliksiz tarımsal üretimi uygulamalarının, artık sadece ekonomik ve siyasi hakimiyet konusu olarak değil aynı zamanda aşılması gereken yanlış bir anlayış olarak analiz edilmesi gerektiğini de ortaya koymuştur.

Bugün dünya iklim değişikliği ile mücadeleden bahsederken aslında, ekonomik anlayış değişikliğinden de bahsetmektedir. Tarım ekonomisi ve politikalarının yeniden ve doğru biçimde ele alınması, enerji üretiminde çevresel hassasiyetlerin romantik değil son derece rasyonel bir zeminde tartışılması, üretimin sorumluluğuna tüketim sorumluluğu anlayışının da eklenmesi ve bunu besleyen artı değer birikimi anlayışının ıslah edilmesi gibi konular, hep iklim değişikliği tartışmaları ekseninde vücut bulmaktadır.

Küresel çapta, şimdilik rahatlatıcı söylemler ile giderilmesine gerek olmayan yaygın endişe, iklim değişikliğinin modern dünyayı da kapsayacak şekilde yıkıcı etkilerinin olacağı düşüncesi, dünya üzerinde kendisine sürdürülebilir bir yaşam ortamı yaratmaya çalışan insanoğlunun ortak aklını yeni bir dünya düzenine ve çözümüne sevketmektedir.

Yalnızca bu vasfı ile bile, iklim değişikliği insanoğlunun felaketi olmaktan çok, kurtuluş reçetesini yazmasına neden olacak – gelmiş geçmiş yaşadığı en sert sorunu olabilir.

İklim değişikliği – dünyanın buluşma noktası

Birleşmiş Milletler tarafından Eylül 2000’de resmileşen Binyıl Kalkınma Hedefleri’nden (BM-BKH) başlayarak, global çapta açlık ve yoksulluk mücadele ile kalkınmaya yönelik küresel işbirliği anlayışı bugün daha ileri ve anlatımı net bir noktaya taşınmıştır. BM-BKH, yayınlanmasını takiben ilk on yıl içinde, dünyada yaşanan çok sayıda lokal ve yaygın katastrofik olay nedeni ile ihtiyacı olan yaygınlığa ve etkiye sahip olamadı. Bu başlık altında yapılan girişimler ya hiç başlayamadı, ya da başlayanlar gerekli katılım sağlanamadığı için sonuçsuz kaldı. Elbette ki, az sayıda da olsa, küresel çapta başarılı olanlar oldu. Ancak bunların da hedeflenen değişimi sağlaması mümkün olamadı.

Hatırlatmak gerekirse, BM-BKH sekiz ana başlık ile gündeme gelmişti. Bunlar;  (1) Aşırı yoksulluğun ve açlığın yok edilmesi, (2) Evrensel ilköğretimin sağlanması, (3) Cinsiyet eşitliğinin teşvik edilmesi ve kadınların güçlendirilmesi, (4) Çocuk ölüm oranının azaltılması, (5) Anne sağlığının iyileştirilmesi, (6) HIV/AIDS, sıtma ve diğer hastalıklarla mücadele edilmesi, (7) Çevresel sürdürülebilirliğin sağlanması ve (8) Kalkınmaya yönelik küresel işbirliğinin geliştirilmesi.

Dikkat edilirse, bu birinci BM girişiminde hakim ekonomi ve siyasanın, iklim değişikliği, tarımsal eşitlik, barış ve adaletin tesisi gibi konulara çok değinmediği; sorunların dünyanın güçlü bir kısmının diğer güçsüz bir kısmının açlığını – karın tokluğu seviyesinde – gidermesi yaklaşımına sahip olduğu görülecektir. Ancak bu politika çok da uzun ömürlü olamadı.

Son beş yıllık süreçte yapılan çalışmaların sonucunda ise; yine BM önderliğinde – bu sefer iklim değişikliği ana başlık olacak şekilde – Eylül 2015’de Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedefleri (BM-SKH) yayınlandı. BM-SKH selefinden farklı olarak onaltı eylem ve bir işbirliği olmak üzere onyedi başlıktan oluştu. Bunlar; (1) Yoksullukla mücadele, (2) Sıfır açlık, (3) İnsan sağlığı ve refahı, (4) Eğitim kalitesi, (5) Cinsiyet eşitliği, (6) Temiz ve sağlıklı su, (7) Ucuz ve temiz enerji, (8) Güvenilir iş ve ekonomik gelişim, (9) Endüstrileşme, altyapı ve yenileşim, (10) Eşitsizliğin azaltılması, (11) Sürdürülebilir şehirler ve toplumlar, (12) Sorumlu tüketim ve üretim, (13) İklim değişikliği ile mücadele, (14) Denizlerin ve su kaynaklarının korunması, (15) Ekosistem ve biyoçeşitliliğin korunması, (16) Barış, adalet ve güçlü yapılanmalar ve (17) Sürdürülebilirlik hedefleri için işbirlikleridir.

Bu ikinci girişimde ise, BM’in dünyanın kritik ve yıkıcı sorunlarını iklim değişikliği başlığında formüle ettiği ve çözümün aslında ekonomik ve siyasi olmaktan çok insanoğlunun sürdürülebilirliği başlığında ele alınması halinde sağlanabileceği yaklaşımına sahip olduğu anlaşılmaktadır.

Sürdürülebilir tarım için – Türkiye’nin yapabilecekleri

Türkiye bölgesi ve dünya için, ivmeli gelişim yaşayan önemli bir ekonomidir. Bu gelişimin yalnızca teknolojik modernizasyon, sanayileşme ve kentleşme başlıklarında ele alınması sadece Türkiye için değil, aynı zamanda dünya için de büyük bir kayıp olacaktır.

Türkiye’nin dünya tarımı için de aynı önemde eşit bir üretim habitatı olarak ele alınması ve dünyanın beslenmesinde önemli bir aktör olarak konumlandırılması kritik önem taşıyan bir konudur. Bunun için ise; Türkiye’nin birinci sıradaki konusunu tarım üreticisi nüfusunu korumak oluşturmaktadır. Türkiye gibi bir coğrafyada, tarımsal üretimi yalnızca endüstriyel tarım ile sınırlandırmak, büyük çiftçilik projeleri ile geliştirmek çok akılcı bir tercih olmayacaktır.

Türkiye’nin, tarımsal açıdan üretken ve tarımsal gelir ile geçimini sağlayan yaygın bir nüfusu oluşturması ve koruması, ürün ve üretim çeşitliliğini bu zenginlik içinde artırması öncelikli bir politika olarak oluşturulmalıdır. Bunun için, tarımsal nüfusun birim üretim başına gelirinin gerek iç gerekse de uluslar arası pazarda korunmasına yönelik çalışmaların desteklenmesi, uluslar arası pazarın eşitlikli gelişimine olanak sağlayacak her türlü girişimi destekleyen aktif bir siyaset yürütülmesi gerekmektedir.

Dünyanın sürdürülebilir biçimde beslenmesi konusunda, başarısızlığa mahkum olacağı bugünden belli olan ve hakim ekonomiler tarafından zorlanan endüstriyel tarım anlayışının ve tarımsal ürün fiyatlarını – tarımdan geçimini sağlayan küçük/orta ölçekli üreticinin ayakta kalmasına olanak sağlamayacak şekilde – aşağılarda tutan pazar anlayışının ıslah edilmesine yönelik çalışmalara ivme kazandırılması gerekmektedir. Bu geçiş sürecinde ise Türkiye’nin, tarımsal nüfusunun ayakta kalmasını sağlayacak destekleyici politikalarını daha etkin olarak hayata geçirmesi gerekmektedir.

Türkiye gibi gelişmekte olan ülkelerin gelecekte var olmalarına olanak sağlayacak en önemli ekonomik üretim alanının tarımsal üretim olacağının unutulmaması gerekmektedir. Bu üretim ise ancak ve ancak, tarımsal üretimi kendisine geçim alanı olarak seçen bir nüfus tarafından ayakta tutulabilecektir.(2)

(1) Dünya Tarım Tarihi, M. Mazoyer – L. Roudart, Epos Yayınları, 2009 Ankara.

(2) Yazının bir bölümü KalDer Önce Kalite Dergisi (Ekim-Kasım 2016) sayısında yayınlanmıştır.

Oniki saniye…


Oy pusulasını elinize aldıktan yaklaşık oniki saniye sonra ya geçerli bir oy kullanarak “evet” mührünü bir partiye basmış, ya da geçersiz bir oy kullanmayı tercih etmiş olacaksınız. Sadece bu oniki saniye boyunca, özgür iradenizle başbaşa kalacaksınız. Tercihinizi doğru yapın. Doğru ise, sonucu ne olursa olsun, gelecekte Pazar günkü sizi hep anlıyor olacağınızdır.

Bu Pazar ne yaşayacaksınız?
Pazar günü, belki sadığa hiç gitmeyecek, belki yalnız, belki can dostunuzla veya ilk kez oy kullanacak ya da henüz oy kullanma yaşında olmayan çocuğunuzla oy kullanıyor olacaksınız.

Bugüne dek, ya her gün siyasilerin mesajlarını ve Türkiye’de ve dünyada olanları takip ettiniz, ya da elinizden geldiğince söylenenleri duymamaya, görmemeye çalıştınız. Kimi zaman kızdınız, üzüldünüz, kimi zaman güldünüz, eğlendiniz ya da en derinde korkular hissettiniz.

Pazar günü ise, o güne dek her ne yaşamış olursanız olun, oy pusulasını elinize aldıktan yaklaşık oniki saniye sonra mührünüzü tercihinize götürüyor olacaksınız. Bu hareketinizde en baskın olacak duygu ise, bilin ki korkularınız olacaktır. Korku değil deseniz dahi, en ağır hali ile endişeleriniz.

Türkiye, henüz vatandaşlarının hala korkuya ve endişeye karşı oy kullandığı, bir garip dünya ülkesi… İnsani gelişmişlik endekslerinin, demokrasi sıralamalarının, sosyal gösterge listelerinin, ekonomik başarı hikayelerinin son çeyreğinden yukarılara çıkmaya çabalayan, kimi zaman siyasileri ve liderleri ile birlikte, kimi zaman halk olarak yalnız başına, gelişmek mücadelesi veren, bir garip dünya ülkesi…

Her seçimde makus talihi ile yüzleşmekten yorulmuş, her seçimde umutlarını sandıklara gömmüş, bu sefer tamam diyecekken, ondan dahi akşam televizyonda izlerken pek emin olamadığı bir ülke. Sevgilimiz, değerlimiz, vaz geçemediğimiz, uğruna canlar verdiğimiz ve vermeye devam ettiğimiz bir toprak.

Hangi seçmensiniz?

Çok basit bir tanımlama ile, ve sadece milletvekili seçimleri üzerinden, hangi seçmen olduğumuza bir bakalım isterseniz. Kaç kez oy kullandık ve kaç kez bu sevgili için en iyiyi seçmeye çalıştık?

Demokrasi şahitleri (65 yaş üzeri, 12-17 seçim geçirenler) Belki de Türkiye’nin çok partili hayata geçişinden beridir, kentte kırda hep sandık başında oldular. Hep vaat dinlediler, hep umud ettiler. Bizler için hep doğruyu seçmeye çalıştılar. Kimi zaman kandırıldılar, kimi zaman kandılar. Çok darbe yaşadılar, yılmadılar. Hala bir umut bu ülkenin aydınlık olmasını diledikleri geleceği için sandık başına gidecekler.

80 önceciler (51-64 yaş, 11 seçim geçirenler) Sokalarda kanlar, meydanlarda yatan gencecik bedenleri gördüler. İçleri kan ağlayarak her sandığa huzur bulmak için gittiler. Demokrasi en büyük hayalleri oldu. Çok üzüldüler, çok acı çektiler. Zar zor okudular, anlamaya çalıştılar. Evlerinde televizyon yoktu, ellerinde cep telefonu. Otobüsleri bile sayılıydı, saati belli. Her sandığa gittiklerinde bu son olsun, mutlu bir ülkemiz olsun dediler. Olmadı, olamadı.

Darbe mağdurları (36-50 yaş, 8 seçim geçirenler) Türkiye’de olanları, gece karanlığında uzun dalga radyolardan dinlediler. Gözaltına alınanları, alınıp kaybolanları, gencecik yaşta yaşı büyütülerek asılanları gördüler. Ne olduğunu bile bilmedikleri, serbest piyasa ekonomisine geçtiler. Avrupa Birliği’ne girmek istediler. Girerlerse kurtulacaklarına inandılar. Terörle tanıştılar. Türkiye demokrasi tarihinin en karanlık yıllarını yaşadılar. Hiç inanmadan sandıklara gittiler, hiç umut etmeden gittiler. Umut etmemeyi öğrendiler.

Yalnız bir parti bilenler (35 yaş altı, Üçüncü seçimleri ile) Türkiye’de her şeyin unutturulmaya çalışıldığı bir dönemde büyüdüler.  Koskoca bir devleti yalnızca bir partiden oluşuyor bellediler. Hesaplaştılar, onların olmayan bir hesabın faturasını ödediler, ödemeye devam ediyorlar. Cahillikle suçlandılar, ikiye ayrıldılar, iki ayrı kanat yapıldılar. Gelişmeyi kentleşme, kentleşmeyi beton, betonu güç olarak tanıdılar. Her sandığa gidişlerinin gecesinde, sanki sonucu değişmeyecek bir maç izler gibi sonuçları izlediler.

İkinci yeniler (21-30 yaş, İkinci seçimleri ile) Türkiye’yi sadece iki ayrı gruptan oluşan bir ülke olarak tanıdılar, öyle sandılar. Duble yollarla tanıştılar, bir kalkınma ve kendilerine piyangosu hiç vurmayan ekonomik zenginlikle tanıştılar. Bir zaman Avrupa hayalleri büyüdü, bir zaman dünyanın en büyük ülkesi olacaklarına inandılar. Yüksek gökdelenleri, uçsuz bucaksız şehirleri, kablosuz internetleri, en yeni cep telefonları oldu. Her sandık kurulduğunda hep iki kanat olduklarını gördüler, galipler ve mağluplar olarak.

En yeniler (20 yaş altı, İlk seçimleri ile) Hijyenik bir ülkenin hijyenik vatandaşları olarak yetiştirildiler. Türkiye’nin tarihini okumak yerine, televizyon dizilerinden öğrendiler. Osmanlı ile tanıştılar. Kimileri çok sevdi, kimileri nefret etti. Demokrasinin renkliliğini hiç tanıyamadılar. Karşılaştıkları fenomen ne olursa olsun, ya aşık oldular, ya nefret ettiler. Grileri hiç olmadı, olamadı. Pazar günü ilk kez sandığı görecekler. Kim bilir, belki de herkesi çok şaşırtacaklar.

Bu Pazar Türkiye demokrasi tarihinin en ilginç seçimlerinden birisini yaşayacak. Hepimiz ve geleceğimiz için umut dolu sonuçları olması dileği ile…

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)

Today!

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.

Tomorrow!

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.