Local governments should not become "local empires"!

Humanity has suffered greatly from social systems and states ruled by a "Single Person."

Kings, Lords, Shahs, Sultans, Tyrants, and Dictators have, throughout history, caused their people to suffer immensely, either for the sake of the social classes they represented or for their own individual interests.

They pushed them into poverty, destitution, and war. They caused harm to other societies.

The reason for this was that, regardless of their titles, the questionable abilities, knowledge, and skills of these "Single Persons" were compounded by the fact that the decisive decisions they made on behalf of society could not be audited, questioned, or challenged by the public.

Many examples of this phenomenon can be shown from the past, both globally and within our own country.

Three hundred and fifty years ago, the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV closed down coffeehouses under the pretext of gossip and had everyone who opposed him killed.

Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II ended the First Constitutional Era, an experiment in semi-monarchical rule declared in 1876, and for many years managed the state single-handedly—with both his successes and failures—but through a repressive method.

The catastrophe that Hitler, the dictator of Germany, dragged the world into, leading to the deaths of 30 million people, "Nazism," is still remembered.

At the head of all fascist regimes that crushed humanity in the modern era are "Single Persons" such as Italy's Mussolini, Spain's Franco, Portugal's Salazar, and Kenan Evren, who had young children hanged.

Contrary to the claim of making correct and rapid decisions, "Single-Person Rule" led to a formation where, in the interest of the ruling classes, capable or incapable administrators sought to govern the country in line with their own ideologies and benefits, suppressing those who objected with tyranny.

Today, the harm that "Single-Person Rule" can inflict on society is visible in the general administration of countries, as well as in practices regarding democracy, security, the judiciary, and the financial and economic spheres.

But what about Municipalities as a part of Local Governments?

Although local governments, which emerged with the growth of cities, initially operated in connection with the central, absolutist upper administration and reflected their will, phenomena such as the acceleration of social progress, the spread of social organizations, and the development of democracy have made local governments more independent from the central administration.

Meeting the public's expectations through directly elected Mayors and Municipal Councils has yielded much more accurate results than appointments, even if local decisions and behaviors are not always appropriate.

This is because elected local administrators are directly accountable to the people on the street who elected them and with whom they are constantly in contact, face-to-face.

The fact that an unguided press acts as a warning and auditing mechanism to a certain extent is not always sufficient in this process!

Despite having units such as Governorates, District Governorships, and relevant directorates, Central Governments are distant from cities and have a thousand and one problems of their own to solve.

Moreover, reaching the Center and making one's voice heard is not that easy!

The guardianship and authoritarian nature of the Center can always lead to antidemocratic results. It may fail to meet the local needs of society.

However, even though municipalities are under the guardianship of the center in matters of finance, zoning, and auditing, they can exist structurally outside the Central Government as a small copy of it, thanks to powers defined by law, and can act more freely.

Even further, within the scope and powers drawn for them by the Center, they have the opportunity to be even more of a "Single-Person Rule" locally than the central government itself.

Mayors, as the heads of the municipal institution that meets the city's needs, are the most important administrators of the city, with the power given by the public's direct election and the broad authorities they possess to the extent permitted by law.

Municipal Councils, elected by proportional representation from among the candidates presented by political parties representing the public, are, in a sense, the "legislative-executive-auditing" bodies of this institution.

Within this system, if Mayors are in harmony with the majority of the Municipal Council members, they can form a team that is entirely dependent on the Mayor.

This situation leads to the "decision-making and implementation" ability of Mayors, who already hold many powers, to push the boundaries locally.

A Mayor can have a decision made in the evening, or even a thought, implemented by the morning!

Especially since the path has been cleared for municipalities to engage in activities by establishing "companies," this can lead to practical results in getting things done, but it can also completely remove municipal administrations from the oversight of the Central Government in terms of implementation and finance.

Thus, local governments turn into small "Elected Empires." And the Mayors into, so to speak, "Emperors"!

In the words of the public, whether the expenditures made by such administrators are "as pure as their mother's milk" can be debated.

Of course, if there is no harmony between the Mayor and the Council Members, groups in the Municipal Councils that are in the majority, oppose the Mayor, and have different political views and interests can also render Mayors unable to work.

Of course, it is not right to restrict the powers of Municipalities so that they do not turn into "Local Empires." It should not even be a matter of discussion. In fact, efforts should be made to expand them.

A full environment of freedom should be experienced in cities within a constitutional context.

So what should be done for this?

Practices in advanced democracies around the world are trying to solve this problem with "Participatory Democracy."

That is, they are making initiatives to ensure greater public participation in decisions alongside mayors and councils; they are producing theories and engaging in practices.

In this context, providing a structure where professional organizations, unions, associations, civil institutions, and relevant individuals can express their thoughts, participate in draft and implementation decisions, express themselves, and take sanctioning steps can create a better living environment for the city and its residents.

This is what it should be!

While in the Anatolian tradition, the selection of administrators from among "competent" and "talented" people is a wish, there are practices such as "consultation," "elders," "divan council," and "council of elders" that advise the administration and force the taking of correct decisions for society.

It is obvious that hundreds of years of experience also emphasize the importance of "participating in administration."

In this sense, to prevent behaviors by those who manage society, cities, and their surroundings—the "decision-makers" and "implementers"—that harm the public and attract social reaction, and to ensure that more correct decisions are made for the public good, "participatory" consultation, questioning, authorization, and auditing mechanisms must be established, necessarily strengthened by laws.

Political parties aiming for the development of democracy should determine administrators and administrator candidates who value taking action in this direction.

Public participation must be ensured in decisions to be taken for the city through appropriate and applicable methods.

Administrations should be formed not by a system under the command of a "Single Person and an oligarchic group dependent on them," but through open "Participatory" methods, and democracy should evolve into more advanced stages.

The fact that the time it will take to implement such a method may be long is far better than the damage that could be caused by the potential wrong decisions of Local Governments that have turned into "Single-Person," "Elected Empires."

As with the country as a whole, the problem of our day should not be a system that will strengthen "Singularism" and "Local Empires," but rather the search for a new democratic system that is more advanced than the current one, where the public decides together with elected representatives.

This is certainly possible!