Etyen Mahçupyan
The Turkish original of this article was published as Başkanlık ve meşruiyet on 10th January 2016.
This is how Galip Ensarioğlu recently evaluated the strategy pursued by the PKK/HDP: “Autonomy is possible, and so is self-government… But it is your method that is wrong.” This simple sentence serves to remind us that, no matter how correct your proposals or how justified your demands might be, achieving your aim depends on “how” you try to achieve it. For it is the method you use that really indicates how legitimate the “realization” of your opinion is going to be. Your opinion may be perfectly legitimate in itself; indeed, you may keep defending it forever and ever. However its “realization” is altogether a different move that transcends you. It requires a different ground for legitimation. This is because there are people and groups in society who do not share your stance but who you nevertheless have to live with, who in other words you have to persuade. Their contrary views and demands are at least as legitimate as yours. Hence in a situation where many opinions are fielded that are all legitimate in themselves, which one is going to win out in the end has also to be placed on a “social” legitimacy footing. Attaining such legitimacy is related to “how” you approach other opinions, “how” you defend your own position, in short “how” you behave — that is to say, the style and mentality immanent in your method.
The fact that today the legitimacy of the Kurds’ just demands has been so weakened because of the PKK should also constitute a warning for the AKP. If the methods employed in the debate over the system of government go beyond the limits of democratic norms and custom, there will be a cost to pay which is likely entail sacrificing content or substance. In other words, you may end up eliminating the possibility of realizing your idea just because you approach and behavior is wrong. As for correct behavior, it requires a perspective capable of consolidating legitimacy on different grounds and levels, and also transforming it into an operational strategy.
When it comes to placing Turkey’s system of government system on balanced and functioning presidential system within the framework of a democratic and libertarian constitution, there are at least four different levels or spheres facing us. The first is going to be the process of persuading the AKP. An approach based on the expectation that Erdoğan’s charisma is going to be enough to move the entire party to uphold a presidential system is likely to make it more difficult to absorb and digest the whole affair. It could thereby turn defending the presidential system into a race for careerism and opportunism, hence causing intra-party relations to degenerate. In contrast, the AKP cannot do without an open and sincere debate, and an atmosphere that enables the sort of genuine coordination that is currently needed.
The second sphere is parliament itself. The AKP does not have enough votes in the National Assembly to take the matter to a referendum; neither is it going to stoop to methods that are contrary to its principles, such as buying votes from other parties. Hence it has to engage in a civilized dialogue with other parties and especially the CHP. Thus might it be possible to transform the system of government debate into a non-partisan issue, to agree on a vision of prioritizing Turkey’s interests, and to opt for a rational solution.
Since there is going to be a referendum in the end, the third level or sphere has to be civil society. It is not enough for a sufficient number of people to believe that you’ve got the right idea. They must also “like” you. Finally, the last level comprises international public opinion. It is hugely important for them to be able to attest that Turkey has done a good “job” in general, that along a universally acceptable trajectory she is building herself a new future.
On all these different levels, what is going to be decisive is your method, that is the language, discourse and style that are part and parcel of your strategy. It is these that will reflect your outlook. If that outlook does not come across as democratic, neither will you be able to expound the “democratic” nature of your proposal.
Note: When Yiğit Bulut spoke up about me, a whole world of incompetence also came alive. It is a good sign. It enables us to see them as they really are.