From the Republic to the 'My Person' regime...

Tomorrow is the 102nd anniversary of the proclamation of the Republic.

In fact, sovereignty had been granted to the nation with the 1921 Constitution, while the War of Independence was still ongoing. They simply hadn't named the new regime yet.

The first article of the Law on Fundamental Organization (Teşkilât-ı Esasiye Kanunu) stated: “Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the nation. The method of administration is based on the principle that the people personally and effectively manage their own destiny.”

With this expression, the Ottoman understanding that “Sovereignty belongs to God, and the Sultan is His representative on earth” was fundamentally rejected, and the source of sovereignty was, for the first time, directly based on the people. Thus, power based on divine right or a dynasty gave way to a concept of legitimacy based on the will of the people.

When the name of the new regime was established on October 29, 1923, the pieces fell into place.

This was not just a constitutional article that gained meaning with the “Republic,” but also a mental revolution.

It was the expression of a great rupture and a historical break, extending from the palace to the people, from servitude to citizenship, and from citizens to equality.

In a single sentence, sovereignty had become unconditionally the nation's.

But unfortunately, since the beginning of the 2000s, political Islamism, fed from across the Atlantic, has been on the rise. Turkey has entered a period where this sentence has been hollowed out and even its meaning has been inverted.

Today, the “nation” is still mentioned in every speech, but “sovereignty” is now identified with only one person.

While the sovereignty of the Republic was a horizontal principle, it has today turned into a vertical mechanism of obedience.

Let us put on our reading glasses.

The Republic, founded in 1923, defined sovereignty as the “common will of the nation.” That is, no person, no institution, and no leader could represent or exercise this sovereignty alone.

The Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) was the “sacred” space of this common will; governments were the fundamental institutions that ensured the will of the nation was transformed into administrative power and that sovereignty was exercised on behalf of the people.

Times changed! In Turkey, sovereignty has been concentrated in a single person.

For some reason, the white-bearded father of history has rewound the tape.

With the Presidential Government System, Tayyip Erdoğan has taken all the powers of the state into his own hands.

There are those who call this a “Neo-Hamidian” regime, in reference to Abdulhamid. But if we follow the classification of “types of authority” by the German thinker Max Weber, one of the founders of modern sociology, it is also possible to describe it as “patrimonial sultanism.”

That is, a form of power where all state institutions, laws, and resources become dependent on the personal authority of a single leader, and administration is conducted through personal loyalty and familial ties.

Although it does not yet have a counterpart in the literature, we call this the “'My Person' regime...”

Let us continue.

The principle of “separation of powers” remains in the constitution on paper, but in practice, the executive, legislative, and judiciary are like a single-voiced orchestra.

The Parliament is practically a barracks for “toy soldiers.” Deputies, raise your hand, lower your hand...

As for the judiciary, it is a spectacle; try to find any independence... It is the “compliant” apparatus of the regime, like a Swiss Army knife.

And the executive! That is, the Palace... It does not function as an “inter-institutional balance,” but only for the manifestation of the aforementioned will.

Unfortunately, this picture is extremely grave and shows how the concept of “national will” has been hollowed out.

Because the nation is no longer considered to “exist” through a parliament representing its own will, but symbolically in the person of one individual.

Let us not go too far back; this transformation began in 2017. You know, with that referendum where unstamped ballots were counted as valid!

With the constitutional amendment made that year, Turkey’s regime architecture changed. The ballot box, which is sacred to democracy, became a tool for the transfer of sovereignty.

After that day, “national will” in its true sense disappeared.

Following the referendum, Tayyip Erdoğan said, “The era of tutelage has ended in this country. Sovereignty has become the nation's.” But what happened was the exact opposite.

The nation's sovereignty was redefined under the charisma of one person. It was identified not with the will of the nation, but with only one person who claims to act on behalf of the nation. That concept of “nation” is no longer a plural subject; it has become a symbolic mass gathered around a singular figure.

Yet, the Republic had shaped the state on a system of checks and balances, with its bureaucracy, judiciary, universities, and media; in short, with all its institutions and organizations. In this system, power was bound to rules, not individuals.

Tayyip Erdoğan abolished those rules and said, “The decree is mine.” The Republic of Turkey departed from the path of a “state of law” and became a “state of decrees.”

Today in Turkey, a law can be changed with the same ease as a Presidential decree issued in the morning and repealed at night.

Institutional memory has been erased, and the merit system has been replaced by a chain of loyalty. Now, a minister does not start a sentence without saying, “With the instructions of our President.” A journalist cannot ask a question without saying, “Our President.” A civil servant cannot remain in office if they do not accept being a “civil servant of the state of my person.”

Sovereignty has remained in the shadow of 'My Person'.

National will has come to describe not the people, but the sanctification of the leader's will.

The government does not receive its authority from the people; the people are seen as obligated to approve the legitimacy of the government.

In this understanding, criticism is branded as “treason,” different thinking as “sedition,” and opposition as “standing against the nation.”

Yet, the spirit of the Republic was born precisely against such authoritarian definitions.

Today, that spirit is being silenced under the guise of “national will.”

The picture is not encouraging at all. Tomorrow, while celebrating the October 29 Republic Day, we should put our hats in front of us and think about all of this once again.

When we look at it from a historical perspective, despite all the wounds it has received, the Republic is still standing and its value is still immense, but the fact that we are rapidly heading toward a point of no return is as clear as day.

The responsibility lies with all of us. Let us conclude our article by saying that we must never forget, under any circumstances, that our primary duty is to preserve and defend the Turkish independence and the Turkish Republic forever.