Politics is a matter of conscience, not a wallet

Recent political turmoil and the "travels" between parties are enough to turn one's stomach. Things have reached such a level that neither the elected official is sure they will remain in the party they were nominated by, nor is the voter sure that the candidate they voted for will keep their word. The reason for this is that politics, like all institutions—for example, sports—has become privatized. The issue is not service, but rather moving to a more powerful side to secure a seat in parliament and one's wallet in the next elections. But while the elected official plays this game, are they considering the will of the voters who elected them, or have they obtained their consent?

In local elections, the candidate may be important, as there is a closer relationship between the voter and the candidate in local politics compared to the situation in general elections. However, in general elections, except for exceptional cases such as weak or well-known individuals, the voter does not vote for the candidate, but for the party whose program they have read or whose actions they have witnessed. In fact, a voter's preference may even be based on the principle of acting as a deterrent to a party they oppose, rather than the party's own program. In this case, if a candidate elected with votes cast to strengthen a party thought to be able to act as a deterrent switches to the party that was intended to be blocked, does the responsibility for the voter's will remain intact? It is clear that this is a matter of conscience. But a candidate who enters an election with a "wallet" mentality neither considers the voter's will nor takes their conscientious responsibility toward the voter into account.

Constitutions set out very fundamental behavioral and administrative rules. There are certain behaviors and/or rules that should exist which are left to people's consciences and responsibilities. Among the ethical rules that have entered the literature as political morality but are not written down anywhere, representing the voter's will in parliament during an election term without a compelling reason is a very fundamental principle. In cases of necessity and during the most difficult periods, the polite behavior to adopt would be to leave the party and remain independent or resign from parliament. But jumping ship to another party, especially during critical periods, has nothing to do with the abandoned courtesy, political ethics, or individual morality. Because it is obvious that there is an immediate or future personal gain in this business.

Guilt or unethical behavior is not one-sided. It is correct and appropriate to blame the candidate who changes parties regarding political ethics, but the party that encourages this path must also be condemned and blamed with equal intensity. A party that gives the green light to a candidate who changes parties to secure the next term without obtaining the voter's consent, and/or offers money or a position, is also guilty. A party that has made the policy of poaching candidates with various promises its motto is at least as politically guilty as the candidate who can stomach changing parties while disregarding their voters.

The responsibility of the party poaching the candidate is twofold. First, a process initiated in this way may become a convention in political life, and in such a development, the understanding of democracy and the electoral system would suffer irreparable damage. Second, a party that issues such an open or covert invitation betrays both its own voter base and the voter base of the candidate it has imported. The multiple social damages that such political maneuvers can cause turn into a gangrene that eats away at democracy and the electoral system over time, and reversing this can both take a long time and be very costly.

Unfortunately, such pathologies have been seen in Turkish politics in the past, but interestingly, neither the ethical and social effects of this issue have been sufficiently addressed, nor has any preventive measure been taken. To give an example from painful stories of the past, it is in the memories that the deep leftists of the time eventually went as far as to engage in propaganda for Özal. Such behaviors cannot be defended as being done in the name of freedom or personal development, because for such behaviors to be shown as having been done in the name of freedom, personal development, or evolution, there must be serious changes that would allow for such transformations during the time that has passed, and those who make the changes must explain these justifications with a level of clarity that the public can accept.

In Turkey, a very difficult political struggle is being waged beneath the surface in the name of democracy and freedoms. This struggle is far beyond being merely political; it is almost a kind of national resistance and liberation struggle. Indeed, when we look at the last 20-plus years, the sale of powerful, distinguished public institutions for next to nothing while under the grip of imperialism and the state's falling into helplessness in many matters may be in line with the goal of imperialism, but it is not in line with the national interest. As another point, the fact that a deep collapse was experienced in the second term of the 23-year rule, unlike the first term, is clear evidence that the policy voiced as a "cause" is not in the interest of the people. Yes, we created wealth, but we made the majority of the people dependent on aid. Yes, we provide support with social assistance to those who have become dependent on aid. However, the policy and slogan of "impoverish and provide support" is compatible with neither democracy nor human rights. The issue is not to expand social assistance, but to eliminate the need for social assistance.

Now, as a voter, I ask those who change parties: Why did we fall into such a deep quagmire of crisis in the latter period, while the first period of the AKP was positive? Was there the effect of the IMF program in the first period? If the answer is yes, my first question will be: Should Turkey always be governed by the IMF rather than a political party? My second question will be: Could the reason for our drift into the deep crisis in the second period be the vague effect of the pink bubbles in the first period? That is, how is it that such a crisis is being experienced with the transition to a presidential system, which was celebrated with great fanfare in 2017 as having no equal in the world, and unfortunately, this political system is being insisted upon? It is certain that those who change parties without having a convincing answer to these issues for society are responsible before history.