THE RULE OF LAWLESSNESS

Netanyahu is running to Trump, Erdoğan is going to Trump. Both Israel and Turkey are seeking a good image, or even advice(!), from Trump. Somehow, both countries, and perhaps many others as well, are traveling the same path.

The expressions above, which seem ordinary at first glance, are actually nothing more than a complete pathology of the new world order. How could it be otherwise? On one side, there are independent states; on the other, there is a United Nations that is thought to have a say in the resolution of international issues, as it was established for this purpose and is presumed to be powerful.

When we evaluate these two situations together, doesn't a very strange situation emerge? Specifically, while the United Nations exists, how is it that the US can be brought to the agenda for the resolution of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, and that solutions are even being attempted through this path? Similarly, how is it that Turkey's internal issues are being attempted to be solved through the mediation of the US?

There is no error in all these matters, because the new rule that now dominates the world is being gradually put into effect. The new rule, which currently dominates the world partially and will establish its dominance even more strongly in the future, is the "dominance of power." The practice at the national and international level that we perceive as lawlessness is actually the rule where power dominates.

The rule of power, that is, the rule where the strong prevail, has been the dominant rule on earth since time immemorial: The rule of power and the dominance of the strong! In the hunter-gatherer period, it was physical strength; in the feudal period, it was the power of land ownership; and in the capitalist period, it is the power of capital ownership—these are the indispensable powers and impositions that have emerged at every stop in history. However, as the system evolved toward capitalism, while the owner of the power remained the same, it changed its guise and was entrusted to objective institutions in the appearance of the state. This stage, as a historical stop, is essentially an artificial situation.

It is very clear that in capitalism, the dominant fabric under the guise of state rule is actually capital. In fact, Ralph Miliband explained this situation with a concept similar to the "stick state," revealing that the state operates like the stick of capital. It is not coincidental that the AKP government in Turkey occasionally scolds TÜSİAD capital and creates "Anatolian Capital" against it, attempting to transform the phenomenon of the "capital-stick state" into a "state with a capital stick"; this can be seen as another model of capitalist logic. The fact that Trump, with the courage and recklessness of a business person, cannot make this transformation is not due to his ignorance or lack of foresight, but stems from the massive scale of American capital.

The emergence of the legal system is simultaneous with the approximate structuring of capital and the appearance of capitalism. In today's states, especially in the legal upheavals we experience in Turkey, it is correct at first glance to evaluate them as lawlessness. However, if we remain at this point, we would be looking at the effect rather than the cause, and thus miss the functioning of the system. Because the apparent lawlessness we experience today at the national and international level is not the cause, but the result.

As a rule of social order, law rests upon social power balances. Well, if this is the case, how is it that the rule of law is gradually deteriorating as we see today? It is true that the rule of law is deteriorating today because power balances have shifted in favor of capital to an extraordinary extent, and capital has now set out to dismantle the old set of rules.

It appears that the once-famous expression "either barbarism or socialism" is slowly exerting its influence. This phrase, which explains that in the absence of socialism we would face barbarism, is now beginning to take effect. The reason for this is that capital is no longer respecting the legal rules established in the environment of past power balances and is attempting to replace them with its own laws.

If this is the situation, it is inevitable that we understand why classical legal rules are being violated in national and international relations under today's conditions and determine accordingly which points we need to look at.