Be reasonable!

Mustafa Sarigul proved that he was an able mayor. He has the right to have political ambitions and also the right to try to make them happen. However, trying to become a party leader through a people’s movement can only be a symptom of the serious ailments of Turkish democracy.

During the previous administration, the fact that most of the party’s had failed to change their leaders was an often criticized matter. If we leave the Nationalist Movement Party’s (MHP) leader aside, who was new at the time, the Democratic Left Party (DSP), the Motherland Party (ANAP) and the True Path Party’s (DYP) failing to replace their leaders was one of the reasons they failed to pass the election threshold. The leaders of ANAP and DYP could have only been replaced after such a defeat.

The great French political thinker Maurice Duverger says that in democratic regimes, contrary to beliefs, the internal structure of political parties is undemocratic. Every institutional structure needs to be hierarchical. In other words, intra-party discipline is unavoidable. However, this does not mean that a leader, whose failings are proven, can perpetually hold the leadership with a congress and party delegates under his control.

The failure to replace party leaders is one of the main problems of Turkish democracy. This problem should be solved the way it is in the developed Western democracies. "We failed to solve the issue that way. We can replace the leader though a people’s movement," is not correct. Such an attitude will only cause the break-up of parties that have failed to institutionalize.

The real problem inherent in Turkish politics is that everyone believes he or she is the leader and Turkey is wreckage in need of rescue. Turkey, which faced destruction as a result of the Sevr Treaty, was rescued by Ataturk, and now every generation coming after him feels the need to emulate what he had done. All our leadership candidates are like small Ataturks.

When the previous administration decided to hold national elections, many politicians, realizing their current parties faced obliteration, decided to form their own parties. The attitude of the founders of the new parties was "I am the leader, you follow me." When they were reminded that it was impossible for them to win if they did not unite with other leadership candidates with similar political views, they conducted some superficial negotiations that did not amount to anything, because each wanted his or her leadership to be accepted. They believed that the people did not support the other candidates and thought that they would be the victors. They entered the elections alone and were disappointed.

In short, the problem is that everyone sees no one other but himself as deserving the leadership post and once becoming the leader never lets go of the post. The problem gets even worse when a few able people unite under a person who does not possess any leadership skills, thinking "It may work this time", and people elect him due to the lack of alternative candidates saying: "Let’s try him." This is why we can never get rid of the shanty-democracy.

If the problem is that the politicians don’t know their place and wants to rule over their parties with an iron fist on their way towards political victories, a solution that will make them more down-to-earth and modest has to be found. This solution could be joint leadership. Japan ensured political stability through such a method after the World War II. There are four large and one small grouping or parties within the Japanese Liberal Democrat Party (LDP). The leaders of these parties rule over LDP, but almost never become prime ministers. Those who claim that they are not in politics out of love for the status may act in such a way.

Meanwhile, a portion of the media criticizing Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal for failing to wage an effective opposition smells of a special agenda. The basis of these criticisms is their fear of the concept of "national interest." They hide their ignorance of the issues, behind concepts of change, globalization, and catching up with the times, which are empty until you have the knowledge to fill them up, and think defending national interests is a concept of bygone eras.