Can the state defend itself through lawlessness?

In human history, the transition from feudal structures to state structures led to the emergence of modern legal systems. The reason for this is that the feudal lord's will as the sole decision-maker in the feudal system was replaced by social governance based on rules accepted by everyone in the state structure. The transition from feudal structures to state structures is a very important transformation, meaning a shift from de facto governance by absolute will from the top down to de jure governance by social will.

When we look at Turkey, it is observed that in the recent governance style of the AKP government, despite the existence of certain laws, administrative affairs have been conducted through extraordinary management styles in some cases, and in other periods, even existing laws have not been applied in practice. So much so that, if I am not mistaken, the process that has brought the system to this day through practices such as the inability to stop the construction of the famous presidential palace despite legal objections, and other similar violations of the law and the constitution, has been implemented gradually.

Indeed, the dispute between the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court, and even the allegation of suing the members of the Court with the intention of effectively erasing the authority of the Constitutional Court, the abolition of the Constitutional Court, and the fact that the AKP government has long been subtly imposing the removal and/or amendment of the constitutional order itself, have become indicators that this is now on the agenda. It is desired that this process be recorded in history as the process of building the foundations of 2023 in place of the foundations of 1923, and for this purpose, it can be foreseen that the name of the potential new constitution could be determined as the "2023 Constitution."

Can we see this change as the work of the second republicist impositions of the "not enough, but yes" fools? The answer to this question is No, because although there are overlapping areas between the second republicists and the AKP, unlike the AKP approach, they want to move away from the first republicist view in the context of economic functioning and state administration, and from the understanding of Kemalism, which they essentially label as Jacobinism. To express it in general terms, the second republicist view can be seen as a transition to a market-based economy founded on neoliberalism. In contrast, it is seen that the AKP approach, unlike the second republicists, uses the energy of destroying Kemalist Jacobinism to impose religious Jacobinism instead, and is trying to build the new constitution on this basis.

Could the new constitution being attempted to be built mean that it will be religion-based and, in this context, a Sharia constitution? This possibility does not seem very likely, both within the framework of the social structure of the Turkish people and the understanding of the mission assigned to the AKP by imperialism. Moreover, even while rules are being relaxed in accordance with the spirit of the times in most of our southern neighbor Islamic countries, Turkey cannot even return to the practices of those countries. Well, if this is the case, where can the logic of an Islam-based constitution fit? Understanding this situation requires examining the purpose of the AKP administrators attached to this, alongside the logic of the imperialist behind the AKP's mission.

What could be the religious mission understanding of imperialism that brought the AKP to power? The answer to this is very clear and explicit: the use of the Islamic religion at the service of imperialism. This purpose found its expression in the "green belt" rhetoric during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and after the end of communism, in the "moderate Islam" rhetoric. While in the first case the Islamic world was tasked with an offensive function against communism, in the second case it is triggered to reject its own philosophy. In short, while in the first case Islam was burdened with the political function of preventing communism, in the second case it is burdened with the function of suppressing its own essence ideologically.

Thus, today's "moderate Islam" definition, in a way that Diyanet officials cannot understand, is a reflection of the mission understanding that imperialism has loaded onto Islam by making the Islamic religion itself responsible for eroding Islamic philosophy. Leaving the issue of imperialism assigning Turkey the task of being a model for the Islamic world through the AKP via the moderate Islam understanding for a future article, let us now move on to the content of the AKP's love for Islam and the examination of how the AKP's love for religion is in a relationship with imperialism.

Islam, perceived not with its spirit but with its literal and superficial reading as a philosophy of resignation (tawakkul), functions as an Althusserian ideological apparatus both in the AKP's own dynamics and in the performance of its duties at the command of the imperialist. The fact that the Islamic religion, whose greatest virtue is not being institutionalized, is institutionalized with a wrong and blind understanding and based on the understanding of sects, communities, and community leaders is aimed at the purpose of the AKP and imperialism. Thus, the Islamic understanding of resignation can provide the result of both acting as a curtain for the imperialist to exploit the country and facilitating management in an impoverished economy. The "velvet fist pressure" with a religious appearance on a society that is increasingly impoverished at the command of collapsing capitalism not only provides a management style that is extremely suitable for politicians with its facilitating effect, but also gives a high chance of success in elections. By providing social services at a minimal level, sect and community relations also serve the purpose of central capitalism without creating unrest in society by saving on public social security expenditures in favor of capital accumulation and/or resource transfer to the imperialist.

The constitutional development process, which I have tried to explain in very basic lines, as can be seen, will not be in favor of our people, and especially in the conditions where it is carried out by politicians who seized power with the mission assigned by the imperialist, it will open a path to complete impoverishment and enslavement. For our people to display a strong political will on this issue will be a good lesson for the imperialist as well as for the politicians who try to protect their power with its mission.