A civil constitution or a decree?

The historical reading of our Neo-Ottomanist crowd does not go beyond repeating hearsay. Turkey is experiencing the serious troubles of transforming a schizophrenic fiction, which has nothing to do with lived reality, into state policy. Meaningless attacks on issues that are not related to Turkey's vital interests humiliate Turkey and lead to a loss of reputation. Power shows that are not well-calibrated and go far beyond its economic, political, and military potential are not taken seriously by the counterparts.

October 29, 1923, is the symbolic date of Turkish modernization. For us, the Republic contains meanings far beyond a regime change. October 29, 1923, is, above all, a civilizational choice aimed at completely purifying the state and society from medieval institutionalism and mentality.

The Madrasa class of the Ottoman Empire, which had other privileges in addition to being exempt from military service and taxes, never liked the Republic. For them, the Republic was the regime that caused the loss of privileges and prestige that had lasted for centuries. The Madrasa, which had brought some of the Ottoman caliph-sultans to their knees with puppets like Kabakçı Mustafa and Patrona Halil, would patiently wait for the right time to regain its former power. From the perspective of the March 31 mentality, taking a 100-year revenge on the values represented by the Republic is much more important and prioritized than the interests of the country and the nation.

Constitutional rules, the rule of law, judicial independence, and the secular democratic order, which is the guarantee of individual and social freedom, are gains that humanity has achieved as a result of arduous struggles against theocracy. What is essential for modern democracy are public/institutional guarantees that ensure the legal security of citizens and society.

What is essential for theocracy, however, are theological rules that must never change. And those who will implement theological commands are the monarchical leader who derives his power and strength from the theocratic order. In the classical period of the Ottoman Empire, there was the caliph-sultan, the owner of power, strength, and property, and on the other side, his subjects, that is, his servants, who were obliged to obey the one at the top unconditionally.

In the Neo-Ottomanism (!) period, the return of the Old Ottoman Caliph-Sultan / Subject equation and the regulation of daily life according to this equation are being brought to the agenda by hiding behind the rhetoric of a "Civil Constitution." We are experiencing what happens when those who possess a mentality raised in an atmosphere of a congregation—an atmosphere of not thinking, not questioning, and unconditional obedience—seize power.

It is indisputable that a mentality that comes from a culture of obedience and considers blind obedience to the commands of the master as worship cannot have the slightest connection with civility, which is based on individual freedom. Despite this simple reality, one should think about why the rhetoric of civility and civilianization is constantly resorted to.

The postmodern sultanate edict or series of decrees in the minds of a mentality that finds deep wisdom in every word and every behavior of the one at the top, and therefore suggests unconditional compliance, is being tried to be hidden with the makeup of civility.

To avoid falling into the trap of a Civil Constitution, which is designed as a shackle on the people, which will completely end the separation of powers, judicial independence, and aspirations for a secular democratic regime, and which will clear away the last remnants of Atatürk's Turkey to completely free the leader from annoying legal obstacles, this time it is necessary to say not "not enough but yes," but "enough is enough, a thousand times no"!