This Miserable Appetite

I read the article We Were Four People (June 7, T24) by the renowned economist Mahfi Eğilmez with interest, learning, and reflection. As Eğilmez puts it, the question of how we arrived at these days often crosses my mind. I must confess, sometimes it does not leave my mind for weeks.

The parts of the article that interested me the most were the two paragraphs I will quote consecutively below. The second quote was also the final paragraph of the article.

“Now, as I sit and compare the past with the present, this question always crosses my mind: ‘Did the bureaucrats deteriorate first, or the institutions?’ I think the two were already intertwined. But first, the bureaucrats who formed the institutions changed. Thinking about it now, I realize that the power that kept the bureaucracy, the judiciary, and the university standing in Turkey was the army. When the army weakened, the collapse of the judiciary, the bureaucracy, and the university followed automatically.”

“We were four people. Our coming together in the bureaucracy was not by our own design. But the subsequent shared struggle to do something for the country was by our own will. Even though we strove and labored for the country, we did not get the result we hoped for; we could not get what we advocated accepted. If we could have, perhaps the country would not be where it is today. It is a pity.”

First, let me state immediately: This truly beautiful, thought-provoking, and sincere article has, as I expected, sparked discussions regarding the role of our army in the course of our country. I, however, want to steer the discussion in another direction, one that is at least equally vital for the future of my country. The four people mentioned in the article were high-level bureaucrats of the Özal era. I believe that evaluating Mr. Eğilmez’s article, and especially his conclusion quoted above, “It is a pity,” should be done in light of some prominent features of the Özal era.

1. Turgut Özal governed this country between 1983 and 1993, first as prime minister and then as president. With Özal taking office, a formidable and predatory free-market economy became dominant in our country. The term “Anatolian Tigers” was a product and almost a symbol of those years. Let us not forget that these were the same years when the ultra-capitalist worldview known as Reaganism/Thatcherism began to dominate in the West as well. What I want to learn is this: During the years when this formidable capitalism of the Özal era was dominant, how much were free-market rules actually functioning in our country? Let me ask directly without beating around the bush: In the speech by the late Saraçoğlu, which is referenced in the article, were his remarks that angered Mr. Özal so much only about the independence of the Central Bank, as I suspect, or did the same speech include findings that directly or indirectly stated that the free-market economy was not operating within the rules in our country? Mr. Eğilmez knows better than I do. Would it be tolerated even in the USA, the fortress of capitalism, for any capital group to produce both cars and car tires, and in addition to these, operate a bank and an insurance company?

2. The collapse of the YÖK (Council of Higher Education) nightmare upon our country is contemporaneous with Mr. Özal taking office. Some faculty members, among whom I was occasionally included, tried to explain in those years what a great disaster YÖK was weaving for the Turkish nation. Mr. Özal did not pay much attention to these criticisms; he did not listen. Did he see free thought and universities as an obstacle to the ultra-capitalist order he wanted to establish? Or, as an admirer of business administration, did he have a fondness for the mold that YÖK wanted to force our universities into, namely, a managerial university? By the way, I must admit: YÖK is not the primary culprit for the sorry state of my country’s universities. YÖK did not train the professors of my country’s largest university who gave an honorary law degree to Kenan Evren, writing their names on what I consider the darkest page of our university history.

3. Mr. Eğilmez has very rightly included the judiciary among the things going wrong in our country. I have no personal experience with the judiciary of the Özal era. However, roughly 10 years after this era, I had such an experience that I unfortunately learned a lot firsthand about some of my country’s intellectuals and our judicial order (H. Yazıcı, Bir Aşırma Doğramacı – Yazıcı Davası Işığında Yargımız, Aydınlarımız; İletişim Yayınları 2014, 2nd Edition). My personal experiences unfortunately taught me that the two most problematic institutions in my country are our judicial order and our universities.

I will end my article, inspired by Mr. Eğilmez, by comparing the past with the present. First, a quote from myself:

“Let it not be forgotten. It was not just a military administration that came to this country on September 12 and thereafter. Along with the military administration, we began to turn into a consumer society with great speed. Justice, health, and education, which is our subject, remained far behind trade and consumption in the society’s priorities. However, the formula of ‘let us get rich first, then we will become fair, healthy, and enlightened’ did not work very well. This is how we arrived at the current impasse.” (Cumhuriyet, February 14, 1992)

In summary, and in my opinion, the main reason that lies at the root of our current impasse, and which in a way we inherited from the Özal era, is this—the poet used it in a very different context, but never mind—miserable appetite. To join the caravan of civilization, one first needs fair, decent individuals who respect themselves and their environment. Wealth, please, comes later.