Bitter Pill vs. Democracy

''A bitter pill is necessary!''. The motto of the IMF years. 

An economic policy is being implemented that is reminiscent of the motto of the IMF years. Demand is being suppressed. Real wages are being driven down. The pension and social security system is being weakened. Instead, Individual Pension Systems are being expanded and supported. 

A complete bitter pill. 

When it comes to health, a bitter pill was administered, especially during the pandemic. Lockdowns, masks, mandatory vaccinations, etc. 

A bitter pill can also be administered when it comes to security. For example, a state of emergency in conflict zones. 

A bitter pill is necessary. It is difficult to implement such a bitter pill in democracies. Even if you have the ability to manipulate voter behavior, it is not easy to withstand the mass reaction. According to figures close to the government, the "Terror-Free Turkey" process is also a bitter pill. If it were put to a vote, it would be difficult for organizations in the political arena to support it. A silent consensus is in effect... It seems one should not ask the voter. 

The smoking ban is the same. For example, smoking is prohibited in all areas of the Bilkent University campus, whether open or closed. A complete bitter pill. If we were to put it to a vote, it would be difficult to get this ban approved. 

On the other hand, it is also difficult to establish human rights and the rule of law through voting. As presented in American films, the torture of a prisoner, a sociopath executing criminals, or even capital punishment could easily find support from the public. Instead of asking the public, we ask the experts on these and many similar issues. 

Health, education, security, law, and many more are subjects that require expertise. But which subject that politics is expected to decide on does not require expertise? On which subject does the public's common sense reach a more accurate conclusion than an expert? Is determining the public's decisions not also a matter of expertise? 

When a bitter pill needs to be administered and the public's approval is not sought, where is the true authority for approval? Where should it be? These are questions that everyone who calls themselves a "democrat" or a "leftist" must answer. It is easy to criticize the bitter pill and complain about its implementation. But do we really expect what needs to be done to be determined by a public vote, let alone be determined correctly? 

Some of us will harp on about the lack of education of the public here. However, if the public's decision is to approach the views of experts through the education of the public, how is this any different from brainwashing or manipulation?

A bitter pill must be administered in Turkey on many issues. But who will this pill actually hurt? For whom will this pill actually be used? It is clear that we need a bitter pill in the economy, health, law, and even morality. Are we ready to accept this reality? Beyond verbal sparring, one-upmanship, angry posturing, and taking jabs at the opposing camp, are we ready to deal with the facts? There is a nice English idiom: "Too good to be true!" (I think we can translate it as "It sounds too good to be true"). The current political discourse is indeed too good to be true. Let's be honest. Let's start talking about the bitter pill. Otherwise, we will be too late, and someone will make us swallow the bitter pill in a bitter way.