Reform in politics

Proverbs are formed as a result of long social experiences, and even suffering, and have become part of the public vernacular. One of these is the proverb, "The fish rots from the head." If we accept politics as the head of society, it becomes inevitable that politics must consist of upright, moral, knowledgeable, and ethical individuals and groups, in accordance with Plato's rule.  

Let us think for a moment: what do you think is the most guaranteed profession in Turkey right now? I can sincerely say that it is politics. Moreover, as the ones who hold absolute authority in determining their own salaries, securing healthcare services, and guaranteeing retirement rights (if they are indeed rights!), politics is the most guaranteed profession. 

While I have a series of hesitations about what the process called artificial intelligence will bring to societies, I am very certain that the entry of artificial intelligence into the field of politics would be exceptionally beneficial for our society.

At the very least, artificial intelligence knows the distinction between the state and the government very well and, by acting morally, would not attempt to darken the fate of society by greedily seizing the state apparatus. Since artificial intelligence is not a prisoner of ambition, it would not transform the country from a parliamentary system to a one-man system based on the suggestions of complex-ridden jurists who have not received their share of legal ethics. In an artificial intelligence system, it would not try to destroy society's dreams by constantly changing parties as if playing musical chairs to stay in politics.

However, this system of thought, which is presented almost as a scenario, is not correct. First of all, there was no social freedom in Plato's time; there were slaves who were prevented from interfering in state administration. In today's society, there is a public that we think is free to elect and be elected. Do the peoples of today have the freedom to elect and be elected? Well, starting from this point, the analysis of social phenomenology, unfortunately, throws us back even further than the time of Plato.

First, in social analyses, it is debatable whether society is rotted/governed from the head, like a fish, or from the body. I am of the opinion that it is more accurate to conduct the analysis with an understanding of two-way interaction, without falling into the error of establishing the interaction between the infrastructure and the superstructure in a one-sided and rigid manner. In other words, just as society itself forms the head tissue of society, the head also has an effect on society. However, since the political cadre is formed from the very dough of society and must cater to the public pulse to reach the top, it is understood that society is ultimately dominant. In extraordinary social events such as wars or social uprisings, impulsive personalities who appear to be altruistic or egoistic leaders become dominant over society, but this situation and the social impact of politics weaken over time, or may even fade, depending on the historical pace of society. At this point, the direction and speed of society's progress are important. 

Capitalism changes everything, including society, so rapidly that every process undergoes change before it can be assimilated. Technology, the production process, and almost every social field are changing at a dizzying speed. In most cases, social adaptation to rapidly developing situations cannot be achieved. While the rapid changes experienced tear societies apart, they gather those who adapt to the change in the center. The phenomena of artificial intelligence and big data have entered our lives so much that universities that cannot adapt to them are doomed to become trash, and companies, and even individuals, are doomed to be excluded from the market and imprisoned in their own circles. In the past, when some AKP politicians defended the party's economic policies, they would immediately bring up mobile phones, trying to silence their opponents in their own minds. Incredibly, an academic friend of mine also claimed that the economy was going well by arguing that those working as couriers carried mobile phones. What can one say! Even the examples given are enough to show how rapidly developing processes tear societies apart in the field of thought and action. 

Capitalism is such a moral doctrine that you can sleep full while your neighbor is hungry, or perhaps you cannot even sleep while stuffed! The politician infiltrates religion into politics, thus violating both politics and the understanding and morality of religion, but gains votes from exploitation. Those who want to join the political cadre change their attire as a family and prosper in worldly goods, not even thinking about the rest. Religious figures who enter the service of politicians do not hesitate to secure their positions by pontificating on every subject according to political preference without thinking about the consequences. When a famous religious figure was asked about interest a few days ago, he was able to say, quite uncomfortably, that interest taken to protect the value of money is not haram (forbidden). Does this person not think at all that a person who protects the value of their money through interest is putting their hand in the pocket of someone who cannot evaluate their money through interest! It is true, but this detail is not thought about, or rather, it is not allowed to be thought about by the system, because the capitalist ideology, which encompasses everything, also encompasses and changes social sacred values. If we start questioning from the very beginning, a person protecting the value of their money through interest might seem quite reasonable, but does the question of how the value being protected was obtained come to our minds? It is at this point that capitalism has become dominant. The extreme marketeer Robert Nozick also moved from socialist thought to individualist thought, focusing on how the individual uses this money without questioning the origin of the earnings. This is how capitalism throws people and entire societies into the same way of thinking as if they were in the same mold, pushing the questioning of the system itself into the background. 

Religions do not bring people together as is thought; on the contrary, they push them apart and even trigger wars. The Crusades of the past and the covert wars of today are examples of this. Interestingly, we see the tribal wars actually experienced today as wars, but we cannot perceive covert religious wars. Dear friends, let us think about this process that is being fed to us: in past periods, when the Soviets were expanding and occupying Afghanistan, the West's slogan was the "green belt." Many saplings were pruned in our country for this cause! The Soviets dissolved, and therefore the green belt project was also taken out of circulation. However, today, religion is being dealt with again, and this time a concept called "moderate Islam" is being put before us. Please, let us remember Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' thesis. Yes, Huntington did not point to religions as the subject of conflict, but it is known that in today's world, religion is the only effective element that creates the difference (!) between civilizations among nations. Under these conditions, how can the call for moderate Islam be handled in the context of this thesis? I wonder why the green belt imposition of the past has been transformed into the understanding of moderate Islam today, and I wonder if the political Islamization of Turkey is a perception or a sincere policy? Let us think about these as well, and let the Diyanet, which is drowning in billions, also detach itself from politics a little and put some thought into these issues for the benefit of the public, society, and even the country!

As I finish this article, I want to touch upon the issue of the politicization of religion, which pains me, by overstepping my bounds. Namely, the Islamic world is different from the Christian world; the two worlds are separated from each other. This separation is also the situation the West wants; because the West, buried in technique and wealth, acts like a complete capitalist and does not want to share what it has with larger communities. For this reason, the West desires the Islamic world to remain as Islam, but to be a consumer. However, according to Western thought, it violently rejects the Islamic world, which possesses the teaching that "if your neighbor is hungry, you cannot sleep full," but has not yet shaken off its deep sleep, from rising up with a philosophical view. It is also right, because the West has warded off one trouble and does not want a new one anymore. Well, what could be the politics of this? Making the formal worship rules of Islam dominant over its philosophy! In short, you can do the five rules of Islam one way or another, and any field you can think of, such as lying, cheating, betrayal of trust, bribery, breaking one's word, and fraud, is free. That is when famous religious scholars can also change the dominant social thought view in Islam with an individual view and issue a fatwa that it is permissible for a person to receive interest to protect the value of their money. Because the religion of today is capitalism, which is increasingly becoming brutal, commodifying and destroying humans and nature, and even, in Marx's words, digging its own grave. 

As the world's resources become strained, we see how the states we perceive as civilized are shifting to the right and to despotic administrations. As resources become strained, social state policies and human kindness are also shelved. I want to give a small analogical example on this subject. In the mid-1970s, a comprehensive railway strike was declared in Japan for the first time since the Second World War. I was in Tokyo. I went down to the subway to go to the university and encountered a tremendous crowd. The subway arrived, and every polite Japanese person became a panther. So, it seems that queues and order exist not in scarcity, but in abundance. 

In short, we can understand issues when we handle them not in their extreme states, but within an inclusive wholeness. But capitalism, which tries to veil itself, prevents this.