Political economy, domestic politics, and foreign policy

The founder of the Republic of Turkey, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, stated just before the İzmir Economic Congress, while chatting with journalists from Istanbul in İzmit, that the Republic of Turkey would be a "devlet-i iktisadiye," meaning an economic state.

At the opening of the First Economic Congress, widely known as the Atatürk İzmir Economic Congress, on February 17, 1923, he said the following: 

“History, while searching for the reasons for the rise and fall of nations, finds and lists many political, military, and social causes. Undoubtedly, all these causes play a role in social events. However, what is directly related and connected to a nation's life, its rise, and its fall, is the nation's economy. This truth, determined by history and experience, has also fully manifested itself in our national life and national history. Indeed, if Turkish history is examined, it is understood that all the reasons for its rise and fall are nothing other than an economic issue. All these successes, victories, or defeats, deprivations, and disasters that fill our history are related and connected to our economic situation during the periods in which they occurred. To bring our new Turkey to the level it deserves, we must absolutely give primary importance to our economy. Because our time is nothing but an era of economy.”

We know the Republic's economic preferences, the importance it placed on planning, and its sensitivity regarding public interest and statism. We also know, of course, how these political preferences were compromised after Atatürk, and even how steps were taken in the exact opposite direction. 

Let us come to the present... To today's problems, proposed solutions, and political economy preferences…

It is known to all of us; the conditions required to pursue an independent economy, independent politics, and an independent foreign policy are clear. In the direct, unshakable, and inseparable relationship between economy and politics, it is the economy that is dominant and decisive. For the economic policy to be independent, strong, and national is also vital in terms of domestic and foreign policy. 

For such an economic policy, what needs to be done is more or less clear, of course. The economy must be productive and efficient. Resources must be used correctly, rationally, and productively. Dependence on the outside must be carefully avoided. In this context, import-substitution policies should be adopted. It should be preferred that basic inputs and consumer goods are produced domestically. In investments and expenditures, public interest should be observed. When necessary, the state itself should be a producer and investor. One should stay as far away as possible from taking on foreign debt. If foreign debt must be taken, it should be used for rational investments. 

For development to be balanced, healthy, and sustainable, planning is essential. In this context, domestic resources should be used first. It is not possible to develop, be independent, and pursue an independent foreign policy by constantly taking on foreign debt.

Opening the domestic market wide to foreign capital and encouraging this is wrong. Defending an unlimited, unregulated free trade policy is surrendering to liberal clichés. One must oppose those who advocate for opening unlimited space to foreign capital, privatizations, unlimited imports, importing instead of producing, the disabling of the state's supervisory duty, opening every field and every sector wide to foreign capital, zeroing out customs, and constantly taking on foreign debt. Otherwise, neither an independent economic policy nor an independent foreign policy can be implemented. 

Just as economy and politics are a whole, are indispensable to each other, and have a direct and inseparable relationship between them, the same relationship exists between domestic politics and foreign policy, and between foreign policy and the economy. A state's foreign policy, just like its domestic policy, is not independent of its economic power. 

Just as foreign policy is described as a continuation of domestic policy, the economic policies pursued also directly affect foreign policy. To be able to pursue a strong and independent foreign policy, one must have a strong and independent economy.

Being financially dependent on external sources eventually leads to dependency in foreign policy as well. To give an example from our own history, the crisis and collapse experienced by the Ottoman Empire is proof of this simple and painful truth. There is a direct relationship between its dependence on foreign debt, its fall into a semi-colonial status, and its erasure from the stage of history. The economic policies Turkey has followed since the January 24 decisions implemented in 1980, and the results of IMF and World Bank prescriptions and programs, are among the proofs of how economic independence and, inevitably, political independence have been destroyed. 

This painful picture has also left deep marks on domestic politics and social life. For example, the problem of political financing, which inevitably comes to the agenda when politics is discussed, and the issue of the dominance of money in politics, is a very fundamental issue not only in terms of political parties but far beyond that, in terms of the democratic regime. This situation cannot be explained only by municipal rent or delegate bosses in politics. It also paves the way for the intervention of gangs, mafia groups, and organized crime organizations in politics on a much larger scale. And it is doing so. In such an order, it is impossible to protect the environment, nature, greenery, and historical and cultural heritage. It is impossible to prevent forest fires. 

In short, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk warned the Turkish nation on this subject, even before the proclamation of the Republic, by stating that there can be no independence without an economy, by emphasizing that financial sovereignty is mandatory for national sovereignty, and by saying that for military and political victories to be permanent, they must be completed with economic victories. Departing from the path drawn by the early Republican period has had very severe consequences.