Politician defections and the erosion of democracy

Defections between political parties continue unabated, and at every level. Members of parliament, mayors, and municipal council members are all on the transfer lists. Beyond the political dimension of these defections, the moral aspect and the issues they raise regarding political ethics are, of course, striking. 

Yet the solution is simple. The moment a politician who was elected as a member of parliament, mayor, or municipal council member as a representative of a party resigns from that party, they should also be considered to have resigned from the public office to which they were elected. In their place, the next person on the list from the same party who ran in the elections but was not elected—in other words, the first substitute—should take office. They would take the oath and begin their duties. 

In our country, politician defections do not only occur between parties in close or similar lanes. They are also seen between parties that are at the furthest possible positions from each other. If these defections were, for example, from the New Welfare Party or the Felicity Party to the Justice and Development Party, or from the Republican People's Party to the New Party, or from the Nationalist Movement Party to the Good Party, we could say they are somewhat explainable, though even that is difficult. 

Defections occur from one extreme to the other, as seen in the examples of Aydın, İzmir, and Afyonkarahisar. Politicians who were Atatürkist, Kemalist, nationalist, and social democratic until yesterday become conservative democrats overnight. Within 24 hours, their badges change, as do the photos they hang in their offices. In the morning, they talk about the social state, and in the evening, they list the virtues of a liberal economy. In the morning, they say, "We are Atatürkists until we die," and in the afternoon, they say, "We are loyal to the leader until death." They pose arm-in-arm with those they criticized with harsh words until yesterday, and with those who criticized them with harsh words. Provincial chairs who trashed these politicians before the elections now stand up in front of them, buttoning their jackets, and address them as "Mr. Mayor, Mr. Deputy." The defecting mayors or deputies also adapt to the terrain immediately. 

Should we call it a pity, view it as shamelessness, or explain it as a character flaw? 

We cannot know. Because we are at the point where words fail. 

But there is one problem that is very important. These politicians are also lowering the level of politics. They are causing trust in politics and political parties to hit rock bottom. This harms democracy. It poisons democracy. 

Because, in contemporary democracies, liberal democracies, parliamentary democracies, and bourgeois democracies, political parties are organizations that produce solutions to the problems of society and the state, aspire to govern the state, are based on class consciousness, and are assumed to be the schools of politics. In these respects, they are considered indispensable elements of democracy. In countries where political parties do not function healthily, democracy does not function healthily either. 

WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF POLITICAL PARTIES?

In some countries, political parties struggle to defend or reflect the demands, desires, and interests of the social segments and classes they represent in the democratic environment, and they fail. This problem is not unique to political parties in developing or underdeveloped countries. In recent years, it has also been widely seen in the West. It is particularly noticeable in Europe. As a result, voter turnout is falling, parties are splitting, new parties are being founded, trust in traditional, established, mainstream parties is being damaged, and interest in far-right parties is increasing. Germany and France are typical examples of this situation. The examples can, of course, be multiplied. 

There are, of course, many and varied reasons for the distrust toward political parties. Since parties are not ordinary structures, ordinary organizations, or ordinary institutions, and since they must have certain values, principles, and red lines, and it is mandatory for them to maintain and strengthen their ties with the social classes they represent, parties are accepted as dynamic structures. 

Moreover, social change and social dynamism also put pressure on political parties. Because social groups are not static. They are variable. There is permeability between them. Whether it is among their problems, expectations, priorities, or interests, there are similarities. It is expected that political parties know this reality and produce policies in accordance with these facts, both to increase their social support and votes, and to gain political, organizational, and psychological superiority over their rivals and opponents. For this reason, in order to meet the expectations of the classes, social segments, and groups whose votes they want, they need to manage different expectations both in the organization and representation within the party and in the party base. In other words, they need to be able to build coalitions within their own base. 

This is, of course, not easy to do. There are a series of criteria for achieving this. From successfully operating intra-party democracy to charismatic leadership, from a dynamic, effective, lively, and energetic party organization to strong ties established with unions, professional chambers, and democratic mass organizations, they need to be successful in many areas. It is not enough for parties to make democratic promises in their rhetoric. The functioning within the parties must also be democratic.

In this context, the party's program is important. It is important that the party's charter is democratic and participatory. It is important that democratic oversight mechanisms develop within the party. Against a rigid, unchangeable, and authoritarian leadership culture that may emerge in the party, it is important to have open channels for objection, a participatory party organization, and a transparent and accountable party management. It is important that the party has the ability to form a political public opinion. 

SOCIAL DYNAMICS AND THE POSITION OF PARTIES 

We know that the social structure is not static. It is in motion. There is no single type of political program, political-economic preference, or ideology that is binding for everyone in society. In class-based societies, democratic polarization occurs over production-property-distribution relations. It is not easy for parties to strike a balance between individual freedom and social solidarity, and between property rights and the public interest. 

When political parties come to power, they should be content with the power of governance. When they are not content with just being in power, and instead of governing the state for a certain period by following certain rules, they want to become the state, own the entire state, and replace the state, trouble begins. If a political party puts itself in the place of the state and forgets that it cannot represent all social segments alone, the state is harmed, democracy is harmed, and society is harmed. 

Therefore, it is mandatory for political parties to be open to criticism, sensitive and flexible toward complex social demands, and respectful of the rights of others. Otherwise, their ties with the citizens of the country they govern, including the classes and social segments they represent, weaken. The party oligarchy and the bureaucracy within the party strengthen. Politics turns into a professional pursuit and becomes a tool for personal enrichment. The effort of the party organization and the labor of the sincere and loyal party member are excluded, and even belittled. 

In short, for parties to be both successful and permanent, it is essential that they take root in society and operate intra-party democracy.