This is exactly what the state is

The words in the title were uttered by one of the speakers on a live television broadcast about a week ago. While the subject of a potential resolution process was being discussed, another speaker shared extremely pertinent examples, pointing out the government's recent contradictory and conflicting practices.

He then asked the person who made the aforementioned statement the following question: What is the reason for this contradiction? The answer, given with confidence, was, "This is exactly what the state is."

In the current form of government, also defined as the Turkish-style presidential system, the president is not only at the head of the executive branch but also partially carries out legislative duties with the powers he possesses.

When the authority to make appointments to state institutions is combined with legislative and executive activities, a party-state administration emerges in a sense. The fact that the president is also a member and leader of a political party is one of the most important aspects of this system.

The understanding underlying this new constitutional order was that the partisan head of state, elected by the people, could exercise legislative and executive power in the broadest possible way, and especially by keeping it as separate as possible from judicial oversight.

While the extent to which this situation is consistent with or contrary to the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law is being debated, I believe that such a powerful executive branch, tied to a single person, is actually a desired order by major capital owners as well as members of the ruling party.

Despite the occasional, softly voiced expressions that "foreign investment will not come if there is no democracy and an independent judiciary," looking at the rate at which the wealth of those who make this claim has increased over the last 20 years will reveal the sincerity of these complaints. (The argument that foreign investment does not come to a country without democracy and an independent judiciary is also not true.)

With the constitutional amendments we have left behind—which I believe constituted a regime change—it is not possible to speak of a state apparatus independent of the political party in power and its policies.

Let us think through an example: In a problem experienced with a neighboring state in the Aegean Sea, how much influence do the views and suggestions of the expert bureaucrats in their respective fields at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the General Staff actually have on the government?

Similarly, do officials from the ministry or the Central Bank have any weight in economic policies, or does the elected political power always have the first and last word?

Although the distinction between government and state, the separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary have been damaged in our country, it is not possible to speak of a state policy separate from the policies of the elected political power.

One should not try to legitimize political shortsightedness, political swings made for the sake of short-term interests, and lack of principles with fabricated concepts like "ancient state wisdom, the white-bearded ones" used in lumpen TV series.

The words "this is exactly what the state is," used in the television broadcast, actually show the effort to whitewash and find justifications for the government's contradictory actions and statements. The purpose of these mysterious, imaginary slogans and clichés, which are far from reality, is nothing more than an attempt to cover up political inconsistencies.

If inviting the leader of a convicted terrorist organization to the Grand National Assembly, after having accused the opposition of collaborating with terrorists just a short time ago, has anything to do with this deep and wise state wisdom mentioned, and if it is a stage of a great, sublime plan, then this must be explained to the public.

Governing a state begins primarily with transparency and telling the truth to the people. The reasons for pursuing policies that are the opposite of each other in a very short time must be explained in a very clear manner.

Of course, implemented policies can change due to time and circumstances. What is important is that the reason for this can be explained.