Turkey between reason and applause: The cost of populism, the hope of rationalism

Turkey's governance journey is a history of searching for a balance that oscillates between rationalism and populism. While rationalism aims for long-term prosperity through decision-making based on scientific data, fiscal discipline, effective institutions, and meritocratic cadres, populism risks the future for the sake of short-term political gain by leaning on the immediate demands of the public. Today, in the face of high inflation, a growing debt burden, and weakening institutional structures, this dilemma is no longer just a theoretical debate; it is a vital crossroads for economic stability, social trust, and sustainable development. Historical experience shows that the key to lasting prosperity lies not in populist promises, but in rational reason applied with courage and determination.

THE RATIONALISM-POPULISM DILEMMA IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

A state's fundamental reason for existence is to meet the needs of society, increase its prosperity, and build a sustainable future. In pursuit of this goal, state reason often oscillates between two different approaches: Rationalism and Populism.

Rationalism is based on decision-making grounded in scientific data, rational analysis, and long-term planning; it gains strength through fiscal discipline and meritocratic institutions.

Populism, on the other hand, centers on the immediate expectations of the public and derives its political legitimacy from the claim of "representing the true will."

The tension between these two tendencies is not just a technical preference, but also a historical test. Turkey's governance practice is full of examples where state reason has been repeatedly tested between rationalism and populism. Especially for developing countries, this dilemma is of critical importance for economic stability and social welfare. This is because these two philosophies pull the course of public policy in completely different directions: one offers a path prioritizing long-term sustainability, while the other prioritizes short-term popularity.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF RATIONALIST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Rationalist public administration aims to use the state's limited resources in the most efficient and effective way. This understanding sheds light not only on "what should be done" but also on "how" and "on what basis" it should be done. Its most important principle is to strip policy decisions of ideological rhetoric and base them on objective data, statistics, and scientific analysis. For example, when a minimum wage increase is on the agenda, the effects of the decision on inflation, employment, and competitiveness are meticulously evaluated. 

The cornerstones of this approach are:

Meritocratic Cadres, Rules, and Effective Institutions: Assigning tasks to competent individuals, ensuring rules are binding for everyone, and the existence of strong institutions form the backbone of rationalist governance.

Transparency and Accountability: By preventing the arbitrary use of public power, it reinforces the citizen's trust in the state; it encourages participation, strengthens democratic legitimacy, and prepares a solid foundation for sustainable development.

Fiscal Discipline: Refers to managing public revenues and expenditures in a balanced, planned, and sustainable manner. The goal is to keep budget deficits under control, reduce the debt burden, and maintain economic stability.

Rationalist governance observes the revenue-expenditure balance; it keeps budget deficits limited, ensures the sustainability of debts, and bases tax collection on fairness. Preventing waste in public spending, prioritizing projects according to cost-benefit analysis, and a transparent budgeting process are indispensable elements of this understanding.

Moving beyond short-term political cycles to set 10, 20, or even 50-year goals, this approach plans education, health, energy, and infrastructure investments not for the sake of temporary popularity, but in a way that will increase the country's competitiveness. For this reason, in a rationalist system, the heads of institutions are not appointed based on political loyalty, but on merit and expertise. Independent structures such as the Central Bank, the Competition Authority, and the Court of Accounts maintain their autonomy by being shielded from political pressure.

Such governance not only ensures economic stability but also reinforces social trust and creates a predictable environment for investors. Although it may look like a "bitter pill" at first glance, in the long run, it brings prosperity, trust, and international prestige to societies.

THE ALLURE AND COST OF POPULISM

Populism is a style of governance that appeals to emotions and promises quick solutions. This approach, which focuses on meeting the immediate demands of the public, is often implemented by moving away from rational economic principles. Increases in salaries and pensions during election periods, tax amnesties, debt restructurings, unconditional social aid, credit expansions, and flashy mega-projects are the most well-known tools of this policy.

The cost of these steps, which provide voter satisfaction in the short term, is high. They are usually financed by printing money without backing, increasing borrowing, or spending beyond tax revenues. As a result, budget deficits grow, public debt becomes heavier, and inflationary pressures increase. Despite creating an image of temporary prosperity, it returns in the long run as high and persistent inflation, melting foreign exchange reserves, a debt burden, weakening investor confidence, and economic instability. The fact that inflation erodes the purchasing power of low-income segments in particular deepens social inequality.

Populist governments tend to weaken independent institutions during this process. Interfering with the decisions of the Central Bank, the politicization of the judiciary, and prioritizing political loyalty over merit are the most frequently used methods. Thus, the rule of law is damaged, and investor confidence is shaken.

Constantly changing, unpredictable policies create uncertainty for economic actors; when domestic and foreign investors cannot see a clear roadmap for the future, they avoid investments. This leads to a slowdown in growth, an increase in unemployment, and the country being dragged into a development trap in the long run.

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND GLOBAL PRESSURES

Today, no country is governed solely by its own internal dynamics. International institutions directly affect the quality of public administration, encouraging rational governance while making the cost of populist practices more visible.

The OECD highlights transparency and accountability with its good governance standards.

The World Bank mandates transparency and anti-corruption measures in the loans it provides.

The United Nations, within the framework of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, addresses the economy, society, and the environment as a whole; it encourages long-term planning.

The European Union demands fiscal discipline, an independent judiciary, and institutional reforms from candidate countries.

While these international norms leave no room for populist policies, they create both external pressure and a strong foundation of legitimacy for rational, transparent, and institutional reforms.

EXAMPLES OF RATIONALISM AND POPULISM IN HISTORICAL PERIODS

Reforms and Confronting Tradition in the Ottoman Empire

Turkish history is full of examples of both success and failure of rationalist and populist policies. During the foundation and rise periods of the Ottoman Empire, governance was based on a disciplined and rationalist structure with elements such as law codes (kanunnames), tax systems, and military organization. However, starting from the 17th century, increasing military expenditures, bribery, and nepotism disrupted fiscal balances; populist practices such as "spoils of war" and "accession bonuses" (cülus bahşişi) weakened the economy.

The last three centuries have been a history of the search for reform against this collapse. The innovations that started during the Tulip Era gained an institutional character with the Nizam-ı Cedid movement of Selim III, and centralization accelerated during the reign of Mahmud II. The Tanzimat and Islahat Edicts were rationalist steps aiming for fiscal discipline, merit, and the rule of law. Although modern principles such as "citizenship" and "equality" were brought to the agenda, strong institutionalization could not be achieved; attempts at parliament and a constitution also remained dysfunctional due to political legitimacy crises.

During this period, populism manifested itself especially in the censorship and surveillance policies of Abdulhamid II. Instead of establishing a healthy relationship with the public, state reason preferred to limit free discussion under the pretext of "protection."

The Republic and the Atatürk Era: Building the Rational State

The founding of the Republic is the brightest example of the radical rationalist transformation implemented under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The steps taken focused on building the country's future rather than short-term popularity. Reforms such as the closure of dervish lodges and convents and the transition to the Latin alphabet were implemented with the goal of modernization despite the immediate reactions of the public.

A similar understanding prevailed in the economy; thanks to the Izmir Economic Congress, the principle of etatism, and the planned repayment of foreign debts, Turkey was largely protected from the devastating effects of the 1929 Great Depression. The Republic is not just a regime change, but also a revolution in terms of the rationalization of state reason.

Atatürk's reforms are not symbolic, but structural and institutional in nature. The abolition of the Caliphate, the adoption of the Civil Code, the secularization of education, and the granting of political rights to women were shaped according to the long-term development goals of society. His saying, "The truest guide in life is science," reflects the essence of this understanding.

During this period, public administration reached the peak of rationalism in Turkish history with planned development, institutionalization, a merit-based bureaucracy, and a concept of populism that prioritized the future.

FROM THE MULTI-PARTY PERIOD TO THE PRESENT: THE RETREAT OF RATIONAL GOVERNANCE

The Democrat Party and the Beginning of Electoral Populism

Although the transition to multi-party life in 1946 was an important step for democratization, it strengthened populist dynamics in public administration. The Democrat Party, which came to power in 1950, turned to rapidly meeting the long-accumulated public demands. High agricultural subsidies appealing to rural areas and short-term projects such as roads and bridges brought electoral success; however, it accelerated foreign borrowing by increasing budget deficits.

With the weakening of fiscal discipline, public expenditures rose, and inflationary pressures emerged. In the late 1950s, these policies laid the foundation for chronic economic problems. In the following years, populist promises and fiscal irresponsibility paved the way for new crises.

The Democrat Party era went down in history as the first example where populism was systematically used to gain voter support. The move away from rationalism during this period created results such as the growth of budget deficits, the acceleration of foreign borrowing, the weakening of fiscal discipline, the increase in inflationary pressures, the laying of the foundations for chronic economic problems, and populism becoming a permanent tool for political support. 

Post-1980: Liberal Rationalism or Tactical Populism?

The liberal economic policies implemented after the 1980 coup, although they seemed close to rational management principles at first glance, remained insufficient on an institutional basis. The Motherland Party (ANAP), which came to power in 1983, supported opening up to the outside, the free market, and export-oriented growth; however, the weakening of state planning and the postponement of structural reforms prevented the formation of a permanent reform culture.

In the 1990s, the weakness of coalition governments and political instability carried populist policies to the peak. Fiscal discipline collapsed, public deficits reached record levels, and bank looting and the informal economy showed that state reason had become dysfunctional. This picture laid the foundation for the 2001 crisis.

Although Turgut Özal's policies contained elements supporting economic rationalism, the concessions made to populist demands deepened the tension between rationalism and populism, increasing economic and institutional vulnerabilities. The move away from rational policies in the 1980s and 1990s led to the weakening of state planning, the postponement of structural reforms, the collapse of fiscal discipline and the growth of public deficits, banking crises, the informal economy and corruption, and an increase in vulnerabilities that paved the way for the 2001 crisis.

The 2001 Crisis and Reform Rationalism

The 2001 economic crisis was a historical turning point where postponed structural problems erupted all at once. The Transition to a Strong Economy Program, implemented under IMF supervision, restructured the banking system; the Central Bank was granted independence, fiscal discipline was established, and the Court of Accounts and audit mechanisms were strengthened.

In a short time, inflation fell, growth accelerated, and investor confidence increased. This period was a rare process in which rational economic policies based on independent institutions came to the fore. However, how fragile these gains were became apparent in the following years. As a result of the return to rational policies after the 2001 crisis, the restructuring of the banking system, the strengthening of Central Bank independence, the establishment of fiscal discipline, the reduction of inflation and the acceleration of economic growth, and the increase in investor confidence were achieved, while the fragility of the gains and the sustainability problem were experienced.

The Governance Dilemma in Today's Turkey: Populism Despite Rationality

During this process, the picture called the "political business cycle" became evident: expenditures increased rapidly before elections, and budget deficits grew. Although credit expansion through public banks increased consumption in the short term, it triggered inflation and currency crises.

Furthermore, tax amnesties and debt restructurings weakened fiscal discipline and eroded tax awareness. Interventions in the independence of the Central Bank severed monetary policy from its scientific basis. The interest-inflation relationship was misinterpreted, and political rhetoric came to the fore instead of technical analysis.

As a result, high and persistent inflation, melting reserves, losses in investor confidence, and economic unpredictability came to the fore. Since the 2000s, populism in public administration has increasingly begun to replace rational principles.

The relative political stability achieved since 2002 paved the way for the strengthening of populist tendencies in public administration. During election periods, short-term satisfaction was prioritized instead of long-term stability; public expenditures increased, and cash support for retirees, farmers, and students became a political tool. As a result of the move away from rational policies in the 2000s and beyond, increased public expenditures and growing budget deficits during election periods, credit expansion through public banks, inflation and currency crises, tax amnesties and debt restructurings, the weakening of fiscal discipline, interventions in Central Bank independence, losses in investor confidence and economic unpredictability, and persistent high inflation and fragility occurred.

A RETURN TO RATIONALITY: A NECESSITY FOR TURKEY'S ECONOMIC FUTURE

Turkey is at a critical crossroads today. On one side is the high inflation, current account deficit, and fragile economy created by populist policies pursued for the sake of short-term political gains; on the other side are the bold structural reforms that will open the door to lasting prosperity.

The choice is clear: Either we will mortgage the future to save the day, or we will choose the difficult but right path and return to rational reason. The solution is clear: 

Discipline in Public Finance: Preventing waste, controlling the budget deficit, ensuring tax justice.

Independent Central Bank: Scientific and predictable decision-making in monetary policy.

Fair and Effective Tax System: Shrinking the informal economy, broadening the base.

Meritocratic Cadres and Strong Institutions: Appointments based on competence, not political loyalty.

Independent Judiciary: Impartial justice for the rule of law and investor confidence.

Production and Education Reform: Transition to value-added production, training qualified human resources.

R&D and Technology Investments: Innovative economy and global competitiveness.

Sustainability in Social Security: Reducing the financial burden of early retirement and populist subsidies.

Yes, reforms are painful. Early retirement regulations, cutting subsidies, preventing waste, and fighting the informal economy will initially create dissatisfaction. But let us not forget: Every decision postponed for the sake of temporary satisfaction will appear before us tomorrow as a heavier bill.

What Turkey needs in its second century is a governance approach that prioritizes reason, not applause. Because history has shown repeatedly: Populism brings crisis, while rationalism brings prosperity.

Rational governance thinks not only of today but also of tomorrow. This is the foundation of the concept of sustainable development. Populism, on the other hand, ignores the resources and prosperity of future generations for the sake of saving the day.

BEST PRACTICE EXAMPLES AND GLOBAL LESSONS

The world is actually telling us something very clear: Rational governance elevates, populism collapses. Look at the examples…

• South Korea became a global technology giant from poverty within a few decades through investments in education and technology.

• Germany made fiscal discipline unshakable by writing the "debt brake" rule into its constitution.

• Scandinavian countries made prosperity sustainable with transparent governance and a social state understanding.

• Chile became the symbol of stability in Latin America with tax and social security reforms.

• Singapore wrote a success story that the world takes as an example with its meritocratic cadres and low corruption rate.

And what about the opposite?

• Venezuela and Argentina fell for the allure of populism and were dragged into collapse with hyperinflation.

• Greece paid the price for uncontrolled borrowing with a severe crisis.

The picture is clear: While countries that rely on reason progress in prosperity, those that chase populism are doomed to crisis and chaos.

The lesson for Turkey is clear: We will either choose the path of reason or we will waste our future in the shadow of applause.

CONCLUSION: IF REASON WINS, HOPE BLOSSOMS

Throughout history, Turkey has been an actor in a governance journey that oscillates between reason and applause. The economic fragilities experienced today clearly show the heavy bill of populism. Yet, both history and global examples tell us the same truth: Lasting prosperity is possible with transparent institutions, fiscal discipline, and meritocratic cadres. What is needed in Turkey's second century is not applause that saves the day, but rational reason that will build tomorrow.

State governance is always a matter of choice. While the Ottoman Empire paid the price for delayed reforms with collapse, even a society exhausted by poverty and war during the founding of the Republic was able to experience a great transformation under the guidance of reason, science, and planning. The fact that Atatürk's reforms are still remembered with respect is the strongest proof of prioritizing reason over applause.

It is time for Turkey to courageously implement postponed decisions. Public administration must be based on merit, institutions must be equipped with knowledge, decisions must be taken transparently, and society must be both a stakeholder and a supervisor of this process. Because every leap in civilization begins with a rational revolution.

Although populist policies may look like a "lifeline" in the short term, they create financial burdens and institutional weaknesses in the long term. However, structural reforms based on scientific data and considering long-term benefits will carry Turkey to a stronger, fairer, and more prosperous future. These reforms will not only correct economic indicators but also reinforce social trust and justice.

What is needed in Turkey's second century is not populist promises that save the day, but rational reason that will build tomorrow. History has shown repeatedly: Populism brings crisis and uncertainty, while rationalism brings lasting prosperity and social trust. If we courageously choose the path of reason, Turkey's second century will be not only an economic one but also a century of justice, trust, and hope.

The key to prosperity is not in applause, but in reason. Applause ends and leaves a crisis; reason remains and creates prosperity!