Towards the local government elections

Following the last election, as we head toward local government elections that could once again play a decisively influential role in the country's fate, everyone is on high alert, and all parties are playing their final cards.

While the thesis that local government elections are fought more over candidates than parties is generally valid, in this election, it is evident that the parties, especially the AKP and MHP, are very anxious. As far as can be seen, the anxiety of the ruling parties is not about providing more useful services to the country, but rather about not losing their power advantages and, in particular, the protective shield of the state. The only thing that can be said in the face of the inertia of our people, who do not react politically to this situation, is that the idea of Western-style democracy has not yet taken root in our country.

Setting aside Western democracy, even as the pressure of the one-man rule in our country intensifies on the public, I believe our people's voting tendencies do not change very much. Conversely, in some active circles, the concept of local democracy is being put forward, and intense discussions are taking place on this subject.

The concept of local democracy emerges primarily in unitary state systems. The reason for this is the view that central government cannot make accurate decisions because it cannot know the needs of local regions. According to the “public sphere” view in sociology, in the practice of local democracy, one should not wait for elections to reflect the public's decisions to the government; rather, it is necessary for the public's decisions to be conveyed to the central administration during the period between two elections.

Although municipalities and villages exist as local administrations in Turkey, the fact that these administrations are dependent on the center due to the unitary state structure in terms of financial resources is seen as contrary to the rule of democracy.

In the past, the management of primary schools in local neighborhoods was carried out by Provincial Special Administrations. However, after the entire education system was transferred to the Ministry of National Education, this function of the Provincial Special Administrations disappeared. 

In local democracy meetings held in certain circles, local committees and organizations such as local councils, public chambers, etc., are discussed. However, in almost all discussions, the issue is addressed without bringing the economic phenomenon to the agenda, solely from the perspective of pure law and/or political science. Although it is a clear fact that the issue of general democracy takes precedence over the issue of local democracy in our country's governance system, which has deepened with the implementation of one-man rule instead of the dominant principle of separation of powers, an even more serious mistake is that the issue is treated as a superstructure appearance by neglecting the relationship of production and distribution in all discussions.

In order to discuss both general and local democracy, it is an indispensable necessity to first address the infrastructure of the society's production relations and bring the issue of income distribution to the agenda. This indispensable condition requires that meaningful democratic debate be conducted not based on the ‘liberty-justice-fraternity’ concept of ‘political democracy’ which was consigned to history by the 1789 French Revolution, but rather based on the ‘economic democracy’ understanding that emerged with the industrial revolution that began in England after the 1840s.

With labor having lost its freedom in the face of capital on one side, and the state system acting as the guardian of the system and the slave of the boss on the other, resources are concentrated in certain hands –the capital and financial circles–  gathering and establishing dominance over society through the media, academia, and even the legal system makes the search for democracy as comical as the futile search for a gem that is clearly known not to exist.

In such a structure, let alone discussing localism, not only can society not democratize, but on the contrary, it can be dragged into a dark fascist system under the guise of democracy.

Under these conditions, local administrations cannot think differently from the central government, which carries the ideology of capital; the segments of the public who have become alienated from their rights also end up making decisions in line with the ideology of capital. While maintaining the appearance that a democratic system has been established, an inexplicably despotic system of governance is created.  

A relative balance in income distribution is important, but it is not sufficient on its own. The most important reason why individuals or local communities cannot differentiate from one another is that the ideology of capital is embedded into the subconscious of all individuals in society as if it were their own self-interest. Thus, the capital-dominant view patterns being represented at the local level can only be considered as formal democracy, but it certainly cannot be true democracy.

The media is often held responsible for the formation of homogeneous ideas. This argument is valid, but in societies where the ideology of capital is dominant, even the media cannot be seen as solely responsible. In the capitalist system, just as the boss is shaped as a 'capitalized biological entity', laborers and all segments of society are also shaped as capitalized entities and adopt behavioral patterns accordingly.

The implementation of local democracy has a significant drawback for developing economies. Namely, while the implementation of local democracy improves income distribution to some extent, it produces a result that is detrimental to capital accumulation. This is because democracy achieved through local empowerment can draw more resources from national value-added towards meeting local needs, at the expense of capital accumulation.

In short, while effective localization is socially approved, it is not viewed positively in terms of capital accumulation and the growth of national income. In the capitalist system, especially in societies that have not yet completed their development stage, socio-political issues must conflict with economic issues in the context of localization. In other words, moving away from centralization and democracy toward an authoritarian regime cannot be viewed positively from a social perspective, but it may come to the agenda under certain conditions in terms of capital accumulation. This is why, as global capitalism gradually tightens, governance systems are becoming authoritarian at the same pace, because issues of resource creation and allocation take precedence over the understanding of democracy. This is where the issue of the economic system comes to the fore. Looking forward to discussing this topic in the coming days!