Coming by appointment, leaving by appointment?

The term "tayin etmek" (to appoint) is used in our language to mean to appoint, to decide, or to determine. It is of Arabic origin.

Nowadays, in daily life and in the field of administration, it is generally used when civil servants or private sector employees are assigned to a position, or when they change their location, duty, or title, referred to as "tayin etmek" (to appoint) or "tayin edilmek" (to be appointed). This is what it is called.

"Appointment" is carried out by a person or persons in a higher position or rank, or by a boss/employer.

The decision to appoint someone to a position appears as a function of superiority for the one making the appointment.  

In such "appointments," and for "those to be appointed" qualifications, personality, morality, education, merit,  and factors such as loyalty to the superior authority making the appointment are evaluated.

"Those who appoint"; either have previously "been appointed" individuals, or such authority is passed down from ancestors or fathers to heirs through inheritance.

This situation has persisted since the emergence of class societies in human history, from the times when the state, as an organization, began to dominate the social structure.

“To appoint” while having such a vital function in social life,  at the same time “to appoint,” “to dismiss by appointment” also provides those who hold the authority with a powerful sense of individual and psychological satisfaction.

“To be decisive about the fate of a person, a city, or a country!”

What a great and significant power!

The irresistible appeal of being a "decision-maker," a "determiner," or an "appointer" must be one of the most significant motivations behind the efforts an individual makes to possess such authority.

Along with, of course, the material expectations that can be met!

***

While "appointing" is a very important action in socio-economic life, it is also in effect in the "political sphere" as well. 

For centuries, the world was ruled by "individuals"; slave owners, kings, sultans, feudal lords, and the people they appointed to do their bidding—their hands and feet.

The labor of the people was seized through them, and those who opposed them were crushed.

After very long and arduous struggles, humanity ensured that in the governance of the country, not only "those who appoint and those who are appointed" but also those they chose themselves could take part.

This is called “elective governance, elective democracy” he said.

One way or another, with many shortcomings and mistakes, even if it is interrupted from time to time and oppressive administrations are formed using this method, “elective  democracy” has reached the present day as a practice for determining administrators. It continues.

***

“Elective Democracy”, “General” and “Local” Consulting the public's vote through elections is practiced in our country, as it is in many others today, with its own unique characteristics.

Countries determine and experiment with "election" methods according to the wishes of the public or political powers.

In this context, the general and local election process in our country has also been searching for direction for years.

"People's Power" which means "How democracy is truly realized or not realized", this is being debated!

In this direction, rules change, or they do not.

In this process, those who hold power, whether individuals or social classes, use the public's vote to legitimize their authority, yet they attempt to determine the outcome of this voting through the most convenient methods they have invented to keep themselves in power.

***

In our country, the practice of "electoral democracy," which began with the Ottoman Empire's 1908 general elections, "electoral democracy" still carries its traces and remnants.

The Ottoman Empire, the semi-monarchical Constitutional Monarchy after its 1876 attempt, when it wanted to enter the system and immediately abandoned it, following days of turmoil In 1908, with the Second Constitutional Era, the country entered a multi-party electoral governance system.

With the proclaimed "Kanun-i Esasi," the "Constitution," the powers of the Sultan, the "sole ruler,"were limited.

Legislative power, was given to the assemblies called the "Meclis-i Mebusan" (Chamber of Deputies) and the "Meclis-i Ayan" (Senate/Assembly of Notables). The combination of the two

formed the "Meclis-i Umum-i" (General/Grand Assembly). For the "Meclis-i Mebusan",

Deputies were elected in the Sancaks (provinces) in proportion to their population, just as they are today. These deputies were chosen by individuals who had the right to vote in the Sancak (province) centers and their affiliated Kazas (districts) based on population, similar to today's

system. “Delegate” acting as “Müntehib-i sani”, “secondary electors” were determining.

In other words, whether their preference was taken into account or not, today's apple of the eye “delegate system” already existed in the 1908 elections.

“Senate” The (Assembly of Notables), on the other hand, was “appointed” by the Sultan in a number equal to one-third of the members of the “Chamber of Deputies”.

“To appoint” was one of the most significant powers of the Sultans.

***

Even today, the top-level administrators cannot give up the practice of “appointment,” a concept of “tutelage” that is hundreds of years old!

In both the state and private life, where it is expected that care be taken to rely on merit, The “appointment” mechanism that will ensure“division of labor” leads to different situations when it is attempted to be applied in the field of “representative democracy.”

Individuals or groups who have somehow reached the highest decision-making point become effective, “appointing” figures in determining assignments, just as they are in many other areas.

Someone, or some people, will give orders, and everyone will obey and implement them!

Concepts like “obedience and allegiance” will have their day!

The closer one is to those at the very top, and the more in harmony one is with them, the more one will benefit from the opportunities of the "power"!

***

Years have passed, and along with various disruptions, the "electoral system" has created such a "culture of democracy" in the country.

The practice has continued with more or less changes.

General and local administrative candidates, through political parties; "either candidates determined by delegates" or "the single person at the head of a political party" or “an oligarchic group within it” are appointed/designated and then presented for public approval.

Although not very well received by the public, there is also the option of independent candidacy, which is not tied to political parties.

Even though society grumbles from time to time, it does not raise much of an objection to this situation.

Perhaps it is because the people, who were ruled for years by Sultans, “Single individuals” and who could only make their voices heard through occasional local uprisings; Even the "delegate" or the "ordinary voter" is willing to have their vote and approval sought.

****

Looking at the big picture, it is clear that not much has changed in our country in this regard for many years.

Today, conservative parties determine their leadership candidates through one method or another of "appointment/assignment."

In this environment where "obedience" is the norm, there are not many issues from the perspective of the voter.

The "single person" or those assisting them “a narrow, oligarchic group” appoints/designates the people who will govern the country or the cities.

When individuals determined through this method are presented for public approval in general and local elections, it is accepted that “democracy” is realized through this process.

***

In political parties considered “progressive” or “modernist”, the situation is not much different.

The “primary election” method, which has been applied a few times in general, likely did not please the top party executives or did not yield the results they deemed appropriate, so “holding a primary” or “leaving the selection and evaluation to the members and the public” is not done for various reasons, or it is only carried out in a limited number of places.

Yet, although it is not mandatory under the country's election law, there are rules regarding how a “primary election” should be conducted.

"Progressive, modernist" parties, if they want to, cannot seem to decide whether a "primary" should be held directly with party members or with "delegates."

It is argued that realistic results cannot be obtained from such votes by claiming that "the membership structure is not healthy," "member stacking may occur," or that there may be "manipulation." It is claimed that realistic results cannot be obtained from such votes by asserting that "the membership structure is not healthy," "member stacking may occur," or that there may be "manipulation."

Perhaps it is anticipated that a candidate who has the backing of the party base and, to a certain extent, the public's preference, will question every decision made by the "center" once elected.

This is what is feared!

Those who hold "power" do not want to let it go!

Looking at it from a positive perspective; in contrast, the "central selection" process, which involves appointments made from the center, is thought to allow for the identification of candidates better suited to the interests of the party and the country through methods such as public opinion polls and interviews.

Of course, in this scenario, the "single person at the center"and the decisions of the “narrow group” are decisive.

In this determination, it is unknown and not explained what the criteria for selection are, or on what basis and by whom the evaluation is made. 

***

As has been seen recently, those who become “prospective candidates” to participate in an election through a party channel see and know this system and apply to the party for “candidacy” according to these conditions.

In an environment where many prospective candidates apply, they accept the outcome/appointment and the decision to be made about them from the very beginning.

Of course, among these “prospective candidates” there are also former Members of Parliament and current Mayors who have served previously.

“With things as they are, the decision manifests!”:

The “single person” at the very top, or whatever you choose to call them—whether “Senior Management” or “Party Assembly,” a group consisting of a limited number of decision-makers determine the candidates based on the data they have acquired, undisclosed criteria, mostly subjective evaluations, and narrow votes whose processes and results are not made public.

It is even claimed that in these determinations, internal “political, sectarian, ethnic, and unfortunately, even self-interested” affiliations are at play. 

These candidates are thus presented to the public's approval.

The party declares that these candidates will represent the people.

Perhaps most party members and the public do not even know or recognize these candidates!

It is assumed that the voters, who have been conditioned to these practices, will comply with  the appointments made from the top.

It happens like this too!

Even if there are such and such upheavals, occasional reactions, and candidates are changed as a result of extreme reactions, the party base ostensibly complies with the decision made by the "center."

Very few of these reactions affect the election results.

***

So, what do those who are "nominees" but are not appointed as "candidates" do?

Among such people, there are many former Members of Parliament and Mayors.

They are left out without knowing the reason!

Those who were made candidates by being "appointed" in previous elections, were elected, and served; the current Members of Parliament and Mayors, who would be happy if they were "appointed" again, express their anger when they are not appointed. 

Some are loudly protesting along with their circles.

This grumbling is also seen among those who were not "appointed" in places where there are many candidates for a single position.

It is difficult for the newly "appointed" ones to be accepted.

The objection raised is not against the "appointment system" itself, but stems from the failure to meet individual expectations and the failure to be re-nominated.

Meanwhile, those who object do not mention that they themselves were also "appointed" in the past!

There are even some among them who attempt to switch parties.

When all positive qualities of the "prospective candidates" are set aside, in the words of the public, "those who come by appointment, leave by appointment."

Attitudes that are completely incompatible with "democracy, the power of the people" can emerge.

****

However, the solution to all these problems in line with the interests of the public is still "democracy".

At the very least, the "culture of representative democracy" that has entered our country's culture for a century can be realized through open, transparent, and fair practices.

Since "representative democracy" is realized through the guidance of political parties for the candidate to be elected, parties must be truly "democratic" in this regard, not just formally.

The prerequisite for this is the "primary election" in its various forms.

It lies in removing the authority of candidate selection from the "single person" and "narrow oligarchic groups" that manage the parties.

***

Our era is now a time when, let alone "representative democracy," we are searching for "participatory democracy," methods of making decisions together, and having practitioners immediately audited by the public, with discussions taking place in this direction.

Any contrary attitude is subject to criticism in every field!

In fact, we are moving toward a point where "direct democracy" practices, which go beyond methods like referendums and where the public can make decisions directly through the development of technology, are knocking on the door of social life.

As asked at the beginning of the article: Does one who comes by appointment leave by appointment?

"The person who will be the representative of the people should not come by appointment, nor should they leave by appointment!"

Let the people speak!

Let the people decide!