Local elections and the issue of democracy

In last week's article, I made some observations regarding the results of the recent local elections. The most important of these was that, as a result of the elections, the AKP fell to the position of the second party in general, yet because it remains the central ruling party, it will be the one held responsible for the difficult resolution of the problems the economy is facing.  Towards the end of the article, I also pointed out that, this situation will make things quite difficult for the AKP, which has already regressed to the position of the second party, and could lead to its situation worsening even further in future elections. When we place these two conclusions side by side, it brings to mind the idea that local elections may carry the characteristic of being an indicator of democracy. 

Since local elections can be seen as an indicator of local democracy, it is valid to accept that the results obtained in the recent elections also reflect a change in political parties across the country. However, the shift in the public's judgment regarding one political party to another, and the expression of this situation on an electoral platform, can only be accepted as an indicator of political democracy. 

While our country is being dragged into a despotic system with a one-man regime, it is important that our people have brought the view of local democracy to the forefront by reflecting such a preference in the local elections.  The question of whether the view of local government and local democracy, which at first glance can be seen as a matter of extraordinary democratic organization and participation in politics, is true democracy in an economic sense can only be clarified by the public's economic choices beyond their political choices. In short, the choice reflected by the recent local elections is a reflection of our people's complaints about the existing administration. In other words, with this choice, our people have fallen under the impression that a change in government could simultaneously lead to a change in the economic situation. However, the poverty we have fallen into is an issue that can be resolved not by a change in government, but by a change in the economic system. Thus, with this serious distinction, the recent local elections can be seen as a democratic election, but they can certainly not be seen as a system election. 

In the context of the view of local government, the issue of social consciousness and economic democracy arises, which requires the public's level of consciousness to have reached economic consciousness beyond political consciousness. The reason for this is that the situation reflected to society on the surface as the economy is not a cause, but a result. For the discussion of the subject of economic democracy requires placing the society's production relations infrastructure at the center and addressing the issue of income distribution. In other words, the subject of economic democracy is related not to the economic superstructure, but to the infrastructure. Just as it is today in our country and in almost all capitalist countries, in conditions where capital, which owns the means of production and makes economic decisions, joins hands with the political power that guards the system to suppress the media, academia, and even the legal system to establish dominance over society, even if the public has the right to vote and be elected, these rights cannot provide economic democracy and cannot go beyond being superficial. In conditions where the ideology of capital descends upon society like a nightmare, even localism or public assemblies cannot truly provide democracy in line with the public interest. In fact, as seen in every country, civil society organizations, which are thought to be able to convey the public's thoughts to politics, cease to be true public organizations and serve capital as capital organizations where the ideology of capital is dominant in an organic sense. In this way, unfortunately, formal democracy is achieved in a political sense, but no step is taken on the path to true economic democracy.

While the change of political cadres and the differentiation or relative balancing of social income distribution is an important step in terms of democracy and freedom, it is not sufficient in terms of ensuring a concrete level of discussion. Because the most effective factor in the formation of individuals' thought and decision-making mechanisms is not income distribution, but the ideology of capital that encompasses all areas of thought.

Especially in developing capitalist economies, the practice of local democracy may be improving income distribution to some extent. However, negative propaganda can be spread that the correction of income distribution will hinder capital accumulation. This situation can tie the hands of pro-capital governments and push them toward pro-capital decisions.

Local governments established and/or strengthened without moving toward the nationalization of the means of production can be useful in opening the door to issues such as developing an environment for discussion, intervening in politics, and even moving toward discussions on the form of ownership of capital. It can even be thought that such discussions could eventually direct social consciousness toward the essence of politics. However, it should not be overlooked that the fact that political power can be changed in local elections also leads to the spread of the belief that living conditions can also be changed through elections, and the possibility that this situation may pose a serious obstacle to the public's true understanding of democracy should not be kept out of sight.