The Republic, democracy, and liberals

The liberal winds that blew quite strongly after the Cold War have lost their former intensity. As the global pandemic has once again demonstrated, liberalism—which leaves everything to the market, advocates for a savage capitalism, and views the human being, the individual, and the citizen as a customer—is being seriously questioned on a global scale.

The strongest objections to liberals come from Republicans, leftists, patriots, and Atatürkists who stand for labor, equality, independence, and justice, and who oppose imperialism.

There are, of course, several reasons for this.

First, let us understand this: the understanding of democracy held by Republicans, who raise the strongest objections to globalization, the New World Order, postmodernism, and neoliberalism, is different from the understanding of democracy held by liberals. They also diverge on the issue of freedom. According to liberals, freedom is primarily about not being subjected to state intervention.

It is about the state not interfering with individuals' preferences, orientations, choices, and personal development. This does not only mean not interfering with freedom of thought and expression or political choices; it also includes the inviolability of private property, the limitlessness of free enterprise, and the absolute nature and sanctity of the market, market economy, and free trade.

As Philip Pettit explains at length in his work titled Republicanism (Ayrıntı Yay., Istanbul, 1998), the freedom understood by liberals is freedom as non-interference. In contrast, the freedom understood by Republicans is freedom as non-domination. In other words, theoretically, having freedom on paper is impossible while one is effectively under the domination of another person, a group, an organization, a party, or a faction. It is hollow. It is dysfunctional. Because if there is domination, there is no freedom.

Non-interference is a necessary condition for freedom, but it is not a sufficient one. The fact that no power, authority, focus, capital circle, ruling class, government, or state interferes with citizens (is that even possible?) may open up a space of freedom for citizens to a certain extent, up to a point. But this is not enough. The Republican, however, establishes a direct link between freedom and sovereignty, freedom and equality, and freedom and independence.

If there is no absolute sovereignty of the nation, if citizens are not equal, if the people do not have a say, and if equal and effective participation of citizens in the country's governance cannot be ensured, then there is neither freedom nor democracy. Philip Pettit also discusses freedom as non-domination in his book.

According to liberals, the essence of freedom is the freedom of enterprise. The primary duty of the state is to guarantee this and to protect private property. Minimum state means maximum freedom.

The Republican opposes this. Because a minimal state does not mean maximum freedom. A minimal state means maximum inequality. The Republican is against inequality. The common good, social interest, and public benefit are possible not only with equality before the law, but also with economic equality and equality of opportunity in every field, especially education. If such equality does not exist, it is impossible to be free, to act freely, and to benefit from freedoms.

Therefore, liberal democracy is individualistic, while republican democracy is populist, collectivist, and public-oriented. While liberal democracy prioritizes mere freedom—and specifically the freedom of enterprise—republican democracy prioritizes equality alongside freedom. While liberal democracy is content with equality before the law, republican democracy argues that economic equality must exist alongside equality before the law. While liberal democracy prioritizes freedom of enterprise and private property, republican democracy prioritizes human equality and justice.

That is why Republicanism, among its other qualities, is based on public-mindedness and planning.