Ballot boxes that do not change the outcome and the regime of paracracy

In Tolstoy’s story titled Three Questions, the weeds in a field grow constantly and cover almost the entire field. Consequently, the farmers decide to mow them to prevent the weeds that damage their crops from growing. However, as the weeds are mowed, they grow taller and multiply each time, eventually covering almost the entire field. One day, a wise person comes to the village and says that the weeds must be uprooted. Only in this way can an absolute solution be reached. Otherwise, the same method will be tried for years as a solution, and the same results will be encountered every time. However, the wise person's suggestion is not accepted, and as expected, the weeds become almost a part of the field. The sadder part of the story unfolds as follows: Another farmer living in the same village recalls the wise person's suggestion after many years, but instead of listening to him, the villagers direct their reactions toward him: They accuse him of pedantry and of harming their fields. Because, according to them, opposing the mowing of the weeds is equivalent to harming the field. Yet, both the wise person and the farmer who reminds others of his solution are not opposing the fight against the weeds, but the ineffective method of that fight. They emphasize the passing years, the fruitless efforts, and the practice of action that remains unrequited.

Ultimately, untried solutions, unheard words, and eyes that always look in the same direction both harm the crop and make the weeds grow continuously.

Don't you think that "weeds" are actually a subject that the entire country, and even the world, should primarily put on its agenda?

Where do we see social problems in the lands we live in, which paths and methods do we adopt for solutions, and how do we defend a different economy, a different practice of justice and equality? Or do we have such an agenda, a paradigm, a roadmap? Similarly, do the ruling parties generally differ on fundamental rights such as the rights to housing, health, and nutrition? What do they say about the right to life of the minimum wage earner and the retiree, and which absolute solution do they defend? Do they defend an alternative economic system, a separate production/corporate model against the production relations of capitalism that constantly increase injustice and inequality? Or do they generally become the same in these areas, and do they all present the mowing of weeds as the solution? Yes, exactly like that.

Logos change; signs, cultural codes, names, and party cars change, but the tradition of standing by the order, defending similar proposals, and protecting the system does not change. Despite this, as a society, we load too much meaning onto parties with different names but similar solutions, bestow impossible missions upon them, and expect radical solutions from them. Meanwhile, the weeds of the order take over the media, the press, non-governmental organizations, and even chambers and unions; they spread to all cells of the country like the arms of an octopus.

Imagine a country where the same person has managed the same association, union, or chamber for years. The places we are talking about are areas where people come together to defend their common rights and organize to increase solidarity and struggle. However, because they are "occupied" by the same names, we can talk about micro-scale sultanates rather than democratic mass organizations. Sultanates with the same delegates, the same rhetoric, the same lines, and of course, the same presidents.

Professor Osman Altuğ said in a speech he gave in recent years, "It is not the people who finance politics, but those who have money." Altuğ continued his words as follows: "A system financed by those who have money is not called democracy, but paracracy: The Democracy of Those Who Have Money. This system does not work for the people, but for those who have money." If we follow the trail of Altuğ's words, we can say that the political tradition in Turkey is woven in this way, starting from the neighborhoods, and that the staffing in party ranks is generally determined along this axis. Remember, when former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu conveyed his opinion on the enactment of the political ethics law to President Erdoğan, he recounted the dialogue between them as follows: "When we brought up the issue of politicians declaring their assets with the political ethics law, the President said, 'If you make this regulation, you won't be able to find a mayor to manage a district, Mr. Ahmet!'"

Then we must call it by its name clearly. When you do not reveal its rules, source, organizational model, and finance, the system you sustain is not democracy, it is oligarchy. In the words of Osman Altuğ, it is paracracy.

It is not the words of the people, the low-income earners, the laborers, or the minimum wage earners that prevail, but those of holdings, capital groups, and those who finance politics; the share falling from the crop is always distributed unfairly.

The result?

What destroys a country is not just bad administrators; it is the order that constantly produces, feeds, and protects them.

You can write victory stories by mowing the weeds. You can even produce new heroes, new saviors, and new hopes in every election. But as long as you do not touch the roots, the same weeds will grow again, and the same order will re-establish itself.

This is exactly what we are experiencing today.

Names change, logos change, slogans change; but the network of relationships woven around wealth, influence, and power remains in place. Ballot boxes are set up, votes are counted, governments change; but the owners of the order do not change.

Because the problem is not just who governs, but in whose name it is governed.

While new hopes are distributed to society after every election, the same capital groups, the same interest circles, and the same power centers keep their seats at the table. The people expect change, while the order reproduces itself.

That is why the issue is not the change of power; it is the questioning of the mechanism that constantly delivers power to the same hands.

Otherwise, what we call democracy turns not into a regime where the people determine their future, but into a spectacle where the people are called upon to choose between predetermined options.

And on that day, the ballot boxes are set up not for democracy, but to refresh the legitimacy of the order.