Another MTP has been launched, but at what cost!

Another Medium-Term Program (MTP) has been launched, but what has actually happened, or what will happen? Are these MTPs for our people, or for the "hot money" seeking profitable returns? In this article, we will set aside the figures of the MTP and discuss the issue through its socio-economic dimension.

Curiously, just before the presentation of the MTP, Fitch also published a positive report on the Turkish economy. Well, did this report address the problems of our workers, retirees, school-going children, and youth, or did it provide a remedy? No, it did not! Such a thing was not expected anyway, because Fitch and similar rating agencies do not publish reports for the domestic economy or the people of a country. Fitch and similar valuation agencies provide a kind of "suitability rating" signal to international capital through the reports they publish and the warning lights they turn on. In other words, Fitch is not concerned with the internal state and appearance of the economy, but with how much the economy can serve foreign capital at any cost—that is, how exploitable it is. The green light turned on by Fitch shows how open and favorable our economy is to exploitation. This signal is against the interests of the public. However, especially in situations where Turkey urgently needs hot money, this signal from Fitch pleases politicians, because when hot money enters the economy, it brings vitality, and our dear people, interpreting this vitality as the skill of the politicians, give them credit with the belief that "he did it again!" without even perceiving the interest burden they will pay. What is the result? Just as in the 2000 IMF-Derviş program, the country is besieged from within; politicians who prioritize the interests of foreign capital over the country's interests embark on extraordinarily costly, flashy investments through build-operate-transfer or public-private partnerships in the first term, but in the second term, the country's people are condemned to pay this compensation for a long time and are dragged into a crisis. After the Fitch warning, could there be room in the MTP for contradictory headings such as expanding the budget for the public good or implementing social policies? Of course, the small budget, small budget deficit, high growth [if that were even possible], tight monetary and fiscal policy implementations, and low inflation outlooks implied by Fitch and similar rating agencies had to be included in the MTP as indispensable conditions. 

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Turkey and similar economies were elevated from the status of "underdeveloped economies" to "developing economies." Within the framework of the rules accepted at the Bretton-Woods meetings, the World Bank was developed to solve our problems. With World Bank funds, on one hand, project-loan support was given to developing economies, and on the other, a series of faculty members were made to write works on development. That is why works on development were generally published between 1945 and 1955. Exploitation was definitely not included in any of the published works. In the context of development issues, the concept of exploitation was brought to the agenda later by Marxist thinkers such as Paul A. Baran, Paul M. Sweezy, and Ernest Mandel. When the 2008 neoliberal policies were implemented, the name and nature of developing economies were changed again; this time, the term "emerging markets" was deemed appropriate for economies like ours. With the latest development, and since the Soviets were also collapsing, almost all economies began to be handled on the same plane. That is why the IMF came to Turkey after the 1999 crisis and created the 2000 program. I want to state that the fact that developed and developing economies are placed side-by-side may be a source of pride for developing economies, but it cannot be beneficial in terms of economic results. Indeed, it is said that the economy performed well while the 2000 IMF program was being implemented, and this discourse has even become a cliché on the tongues of some of our colleagues. Because international capital came through build-operate-transfer or public-private partnerships, and things livened up. Well, what was the result? Here we are, living through the second term of the AKP. In short, the entire period of the AKP is a whole. The first term was like soap bubbles, and in the second term, we are experiencing a crisis because the bill for those soap bubbles has come due. Not addressing issues within a holistic and cause-effect relationship, but perceiving them as momentary occurrences, will never lead us to the right conclusion. 

The MTP shows the results of the economy's functioning, just as the operation of a car's engine is seen on the gauges. In short, the MTP is a table of superficial targeted images. However, the question of how and/or to what extent these images can be achieved is unknown. Although some measures that need to be taken are included in the middle pages of the program, it is written in every public program that all measures will be taken in every field, but nothing of note is ever done. That is why some estimates are changed in every program, and even between years. Our economy, which has not yet completed its development stage and has not been able to escape the middle-income trap, does not need a medium-term program, but a serious long-term planning and programming system. Such a planning, programming, and budgeting system was transitioned to in line with the 1961 Constitution. However, capitalist state structures are not inclined to such inclusive planning, nor does international capital allow it. This system was not abolished by the politicians' rhetoric that "the people need rice, not a plan," but it was effectively not implemented. A similar attempt was made by the Workers' Party of Turkey (TİP) with a study titled "Plan for Democratization-1978-1980." This, too, was thwarted by the well-known processes. We must think seriously about the issue of both planning activities being thwarted, despite having different structures and textures; is it a coincidence that both plans were thwarted, or is it related to the political connections of the country and the government structure? Yes, every system produces its own political cadre and puts into use the tools suitable for its structure. The fact that government structures are capitalist and pro-capital is not related to their disloyalty or love for the system, but to the organic structures of the systems and how they structure their institutions. Unfortunately, we cannot think about the issue in the way we want. But if our imprisonment within the system is valid, we must try to foresee the results of the system and take precautions accordingly. I cannot pass without recording a famous saying on this subject: Rosa Luxemburg's "socialism or barbarism!" The fact that even European governments are gradually shifting toward right-wing and despotic structures should be chilling to us.