First, be a good person: A Turkey where honesty does not lose and merit wins

What is a country's greatest loss?

Is it the shrinking of its economy? The devaluation of its currency? The departure of its skilled people to other countries? The weakening of its institutions?

All of these are important and can be compensated for over time. But in a society where honesty is devalued, loyalty replaces merit, privilege replaces rights, and self-interest replaces morality, the real loss is trust. The devaluation of the good person, the normalization of evil, and the fact that wrongdoing is no longer questioned point to a crisis of morality and trust that is much deeper than economic or institutional losses.

Today, behind many discussions that seem distinct—from exams to the economy, from football to politics, from public administration to disasters—there is actually the same question: Where is justice, and how much do people trust the system?

Turkey certainly needs good economists, successful politicians, qualified bureaucrats, scientists, entrepreneurs, teachers, doctors, engineers, and successful athletes. But before all of this, we have a more fundamental need: To raise honest, moral, conscientious, fair-minded, and meritorious people.

Because being well-educated does not mean being a good person. A diploma is not a certificate of morality, a position is not a guarantee of merit, and wealth is not the sole measure of success. Winning an election is not always an indicator of being right, and becoming a champion is not always an indicator of being moral.

If knowledge is not combined with morality, it can turn into cunning; if power is not limited by conscience, it can turn into oppression; if politics moves away from the public interest, it can turn into a struggle for self-interest; and if the economy is disconnected from production, it can turn into a rent-seeking order. Then we must ask the real question: Are we teaching our children only to be successful, or are we also teaching them to be good people? And more importantly, what kind of example are we adults setting for them?

IT MAY BE LEGAL, BUT IS IT MORAL?

If we limit morality only to an individual's private life, we miss the big picture. Just as there is individual morality, there is also professional, commercial, and sports morality; public administration and politics also have a morality.

Moreover, the responsibility of those who use public power is greater. Because they make decisions not only on their own behalf but on behalf of society; they use public resources and can affect the lives of millions of people. Therefore, one must face a fundamental question: Is everything that is legal also moral?

A transaction may be in accordance with legislation, an appointment may be legally possible, and a tender may be in accordance with procedure. A politician may use the authority granted to them within the limits of the law. However, none of these mean that the decision taken is inherently fair, conscientious, ethical, and in the public interest.

Because the law draws the line of what we can and cannot do; morality makes us question whether it is right to do something we have the authority to do.

One of the most concrete manifestations of this distinction in public administration is the question of “loyalty or merit?” Commitment to the state, the institution, and the public interest is, of course, valuable. However, when loyalty to individuals or political affiliations takes precedence over competence and merit, not only the quality of institutions but also the society's sense of justice and trust in the state are damaged.

THREE SEPARATE AGENDAS, A SINGLE TEST OF TRUST

Let's look at three discussions that have recently come to the fore on Turkey's agenda: The fund crisis, developments surrounding the Turkish Football Federation and the Central Referee Board, and members of parliament and mayors changing parties…

One is economy, one is sports, and the other is politics. At the common point of these three areas, which seem completely different at first glance, are the same concepts: Morality, justice, accountability, and trust. In fact, the issue rests on a question deeper than what the law or rules allow: Not “Can I do this?”, but “Is it right for me to do this?”

We can ask the same question in exam systems from LGS to KPSS, in public recruitment, in pre-disaster inspections, and in economic life. The areas, people, and events change; but society's expectation does not: To be fair, to protect rights, and not to betray trust.

1) Fund Crisis: Winning, or How We Win?

The recent fund crisis is one of the striking examples of the relationship between the economy and morality. With its decisions dated September 17, 2026, the Capital Markets Board (SPK) decided to liquidate 131 funds belonging to 7 portfolio management companies. It was announced that the number of individual investors in these funds was 455 thousand 758. The liquidation process is ongoing. On October 1, the SPK also announced that an interim payment of up to 1 million TL per fund per investor would be made to the beneficiaries whose reconciliation transactions were completed in certain funds, to be deducted from the final amount. It is, of course, not right to pass judgment on individuals before judicial and administrative processes are completed.

However, we have to ask some questions: How did this system grow so much? Who won while it was rising? Why couldn't the risks be limited in time? And who will pay the bill in the end?

In a financial structure where extraordinary gains are made, while risks are spread to hundreds of thousands of investors, is compliance with legislation alone sufficient? Who will protect the boundary between benefiting from the opportunities offered by the market and making a profit by disrupting the healthy functioning of the market? Where does the responsibility of regulatory and supervisory institutions begin when risks become visible?

The fundamental principle here should be clear: Gains should not be credited to individuals, and losses should not be credited to society. The expectation that large losses can be transferred to the public at the end encourages taking more risks. This situation, defined as “moral hazard” in the economy, can lay the groundwork for tomorrow's crisis while solving today's crisis. The state's duty is not to cover every loss of the investor. The real duty is; to ensure that the market operates fairly and transparently, to prevent manipulation, to detect systemic risks in time, and to hold those who violate the rules accountable. Because one of the most valuable capitals of capital markets is, paradoxically, not money, but trust.

We should also ask ourselves another question: Do we sufficiently question the source and sustainability of gains far above normal market conditions? If everyone is satisfied when there is a gain, and everyone is a victim when a loss emerges, the problem is not just financial. It is also necessary to question the understanding that considers easy and fast money as success, regardless of how it is obtained.

Because in financial markets, as in other areas of life, the method is as important as the result. Not every high return is success, and not every gain is an earned gain. Where rules, supervision, and morality are weakened, wealth can be produced in the short term; but in the long term, something much more valuable is lost: Trust.

Then the real question is: Is winning success on its own, or is how we win also important?

2) Football: Justice Before the Cup, Trust Before Success

Turkish football is facing a similar test of trust today. Within the scope of the investigation known in the public as the “Referees file,” judicial proceedings were carried out against some names from the football and referee community; MHK President Ferhat Gündoğdu also resigned from his post during the ongoing process.

Due to the presumption of innocence, we cannot declare anyone guilty before the trial is completed. However, the issue is not just the legal responsibility of individuals. The real issue is the trust in the institutions, rules, and justice of Turkish football.

For football to survive, the fan must believe that teams compete with equal rules, in the impartiality of the referee, that VAR is applied with the same standards for everyone, and that off-field relationships do not determine the result. Because more important than the result of a match is the belief that that result is fair.

Atatürk's words, “I like the athlete who is intelligent, agile, and at the same time moral,” should be read not only for athletes but for all actors of sports. The athlete, the referee, the manager, the club, and the federation all have moral responsibilities. Becoming a champion is important; but how you become a champion is more important.

Moreover, modern football is no longer just a sport; it is a large economic ecosystem extending from broadcasting rights to sponsorships, from transfers to the betting economy. Therefore, success should not be evaluated only by the size of the budget; but by how rationally resources are used, how meritocratically institutions are managed, and to what extent opportunities can be transformed into sustainable success.

Just as institutional quality, predictability, merit, transparency, and accountability are the foundation of sustainable development in the economy, the path to lasting success in football follows the same principles. Lack of planning, merit discussions, lack of accountability, and lack of strategic foresight eventually reflect on the field as well.

The fact that football becomes a carrier of political discussions, power struggles, or calculations of interest harms the nature of the game. The primary agenda of football should be; infrastructure, player development, coach and referee training, performance analysis, institutional capacity, and sporting success. When short-term calculations and the search for popularity take precedence over these, the system loses its focus.

For this reason, what Turkish football really needs is not new excuses, but a management approach that will rebuild trust. Lasting success cannot be achieved without transparency, accountability, merit, consistent referee standards, effective resource management, and a long-term football vision. Because football does not only need better players or bigger budgets. It needs fair rules, strong institutions, and a system that works the same for everyone. Justice is needed before the cup, and trust is needed before success.

3) Politics: Is What Is Legal Also Consistent with Political Morality?

We encounter the same question in politics. Recently, the fact that members of parliament, council members, and mayors have left the parties they were elected from and joined other parties is being discussed again in terms of political representation and voter will.

A politician leaving their party or joining another party is not illegal on its own. It would not be right to consider every party change as morally wrong. A politician may have serious disagreements with their party on fundamental principles or policies. However, the fact that a behavior is legally possible does not eliminate the question of whether it is ethically appropriate from a political perspective.

Because the voter often votes not only for the candidate but also for the party's program, principles, and the political line it represents. Then it is necessary to ask these questions: Did the voter vote for the person, the party, or the political will that the two represent together? Is there a principled disagreement behind the party change, or are there calculations of position, political future, or other interests?

The real issue here is not just the right to change parties, but how the representative authority received from the voter is used. There is an important political morality debate between a person who leaves the political line they were elected from and continues their duty by joining another party, and leaving the voter's will to the evaluation of the ballot box again. The normalization of party changes can, over time, damage the voter's trust in the institution of representation.

Of course, every event should be evaluated within its own conditions. But the fundamental principle does not change: The politician's responsibility should be not only to the law but also to the voter's will entrusted to them. Because democracy is not just about coming out of the ballot box. Protecting the authority given by the voter, the promise made, and the representative responsibility undertaken is also the moral dimension of democracy.

MONEY, JUSTICE, WILL: The Foundation of All Is Trust

The common point of these three examples is actually very clear: In the fund market, the investor entrusts their money; in football, the fan entrusts their sense of justice; and in politics, the voter entrusts their will. In all three, what is expected is the same: Trust.

If the investor asks “Are the rules applied equally to everyone?”, the fan asks “Is the match really won on the field?”, and the voter asks “Does the person elected with my vote still represent my political preference?”, the issue has gone beyond individual people or events and has turned into an institutional crisis of trust.

Moreover, this relationship of trust is not limited to these three areas. The young person taking an exam entrusts their future and labor, and the citizen entrusts their rights, property, and life to the system. Therefore, trust is not just a feeling between people; it is the invisible bond of the social contract between the citizen and the state, between the individual and institutions.

When this bond weakens, what is lost is not just money, a match, or an election; it is the belief in justice, rules, and the order of living together.

THERE IS ALSO AN ECONOMY OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS

There is a very strong concept in the conscience of our society: The rights of others (kul hakkı). However, we often think of this only through relationships between individuals. Yet, using public power unfairly, giving one person's right to another, and directing the common resources of society to the benefit of certain people or groups is also a violation of the rights of others.

Appointing someone without merit to a public office, putting someone else ahead of the deserving in an exam, and hiring through nepotism is a violation of the rights of others. It is the same to put others ahead of young people who have worked for years, prepared for exams, and tried to deserve a position with their labor through exceptional cadres. When the exception becomes the ordinary recruitment method, merit remains only on paper. In such an order, it becomes increasingly difficult to tell a young person who has been preparing for the KPSS for years, “If you work, you will get your reward.”

Distorting competition in a tender, providing privilege due to political or personal closeness, and using public resources for private or political gain are also in the same scope. Because in each of them, privilege is transferred to some by taking from the common right of society.

For this reason, merit is not only a management principle but also a moral principle and a matter of the rights of others. Moreover, the rights of others also have an economic equivalent. The salary received by a person who is appointed to a public office without deserving it is not just a budget expense; it is the loss of the meritorious person who could not get that position. The extra cost of a tender where competition is not sufficiently ensured is not just an accounting figure; it is the loss of the school, nursery, road, treatment plant, or social assistance that could be built with that resource.

The gain of the tax evader is an additional cost loaded on the back of the citizen who pays their taxes regularly. The public resource lost through corruption is not just money missing from the budget; it is what is missing from the citizen's pocket, the child's education, the patient's health service, and the welfare of future generations.

The problem deepens further when interest and rent relations become part of the economic and political order. The transformation of social assistance into a tool for producing political loyalty; appointments not based on merit, partisan hiring, and resource distributions; and privileges granted for political purposes without considering economic balances are different manifestations of the same understanding.

When a system of privilege is formed, ranging from interest and land rent to the distribution of public resources, from the operating losses of state economic enterprises to tenders that limit competition, from tax exemptions and exceptions to Treasury guarantees and privileged incentives, public policy moves away from the goal of producing the common good. It is gradually replaced by a cycle of rent, loyalty, and privilege. In such an order, closeness is valued more than deserving, access to rent is valued more than producing, and loyalty is valued more than merit.

The real danger is that all of this becomes normalized over time. Moral erosion is first tolerated, then normalized, and finally legitimized. Yet, the spread of wrongdoing does not make the wrong right; it only reduces society's sensitivity to wrongdoing.

For this reason, morality in public administration is not an abstract discussion of values. Protecting the rights of others is protecting merit, justice, and competition. Protecting these is protecting public resources, social trust, and the country's future. Therefore, the issue is not just morality; it is also a matter of justice, efficiency, prosperity, and development.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONLY IN THE PERSON, BUT ALSO IN THE SYSTEM

However, it would be simplistic to place all the responsibility on people's character. We cannot explain favoritism, corruption, rent-seeking, lack of merit, and lack of accountability only as “bad behaviors of bad people.” Because human behavior is shaped by institutions, rules, and the incentive system as much as personal morality.

If an order punishes those who act honestly, rewards those who bypass the rules, replaces merit with loyalty, and protects those who do not account, it is not enough to just tell people to “be moral.” As much as we need good people, we also need strong institutions that protect good people, encourage correct behavior, and make it difficult to do wrong.

Because when morality weakens, merit erodes; when merit erodes, institutions weaken; when institutions weaken, justice and trust are shaken. When trust is lost, the price is paid not only by public administration but also by the economy, democracy, and social peace.

In a system where merit is ignored, appointing people who do not have the necessary knowledge and experience to critical positions lowers the quality of decisions, weakens institutional capacity, and leads to inefficient use of resources. While qualified people are pushed out of the system, closeness and loyalty take precedence over knowledge and competence. Yet, the summary of the ancient understanding is clear: “Not giving the job to the one who deserves it is cruelty to the one who deserves it; giving it to the one who does not deserve it is cruelty to everyone.”

The real issue is to be able to use public power and resources within rational, fair, moral, and conscientious measures, observing the public interest. In an order where moral, knowledgeable, and experienced people are without authority; and those who have authority are devoid of knowledge, merit, and responsibility, problems are not solved, they are reproduced. The result of this is not just inefficiency; the sense of justice is damaged, trust in institutions erodes, and social belonging weakens.

The most dangerous thing is that wrongs become normalized over time. If the thought “everyone does it anyway” is becoming widespread, the problem has long since exceeded the behavior of a few people. Because moral erosion often begins not with major breaks, but with the repetition, tolerance, and finally the legitimization of small wrongs.

When the belief that the one who follows the rules loses and the one who bypasses the rules wins settles in society, people begin to lose their trust not only in institutions but also in each other. At that point, the issue is no longer just bad management or institutional weakness; it is a crisis of morality and trust that spreads to the whole of economic, social, and political life.

ARE WE TEACHING OUR CHILDREN SUCCESS, OR TO BE GOOD PEOPLE?

And finally, all roads lead to education. When we talk about education policies, we discuss schools, universities, exam results, and international rankings. All of these are important. But we have a more fundamental question: What kind of person do we want to raise?

People who only pass exams, earn more money, and reach higher positions? Or individuals who, while achieving all of this, can protect their honesty, conscience, sense of justice, and humanity?

In fact, the question young people ask us is very clear: “If I work, will I be able to get my reward? If I deserve it, will I be able to rise? Or will someone else's nepotism get in front of my labor?”

A child taking the LGS, a young person preparing for the university exam, or a candidate who has been working for years for the KPSS asks the system essentially the same question: “If I do my part, will you treat me fairly?” For this reason, the way to overcome the hopelessness of young people is not just to tell them to work harder; it is to establish a fair order where they can get the reward for their labor.

There is an important truth that successful education systems in the world remind us of: Education is not just academic success. It is also necessary to teach respect for the rights of others, the value of labor, the responsibility of living together, solidarity, and responsibility towards society.

Moreover, these values are not foreign to us. In the social memory of this geography, justice, the rights of others, neighborly law, solidarity, respect for labor, and conscience have a strong place. The issue is not to look for new values; it is to keep these values we have alive and to strengthen them where they have weakened.

Because a country must give its young people not only education, jobs, and income; but also a sense of justice, belonging, and hope for the future.

If a young person is going to another country only for a higher salary, there is an economic problem. But if they are leaving by saying “I cannot get the reward for my labor here,” the issue is no longer just brain drain.

This is also a migration of trust.

CHILDREN LEARN NOT OUR WORDS, BUT OUR ACTIONS

Raising a good person is not just the duty of the school. It starts in the family, develops in school, is tested in business life; it is institutionalized in bureaucracy, sets an example in politics, turns into trust in the economy, and sportsmanship in sports.

If we tell our children “be honest” and show them an order where those who are not honest rise faster; if we say “work hard” and hire through nepotism; if we say “do not eat the rights of others” and normalize lack of merit; if we say “be fair” and apply different rules to the strong and different rules to the weak, no moral lesson we give will be sufficiently convincing.

If, on the one hand, we talk about labor, honesty, and fairness, and on the other hand, we present getting rich quickly, fame, privilege, or rising by bypassing the rules as success stories, we teach our children one thing with our words and another with our behaviors.

Because values are transferred not only by being told, but by being lived. Children listen to what we say; but they mainly learn what we do.

For this reason, if we want to raise good people, we must first put before them a life practice where honesty does not lose, labor finds its reward, merit is rewarded, and justice is applied equally to everyone.

A GOOD SYSTEM IS NEEDED TO PROTECT THE GOOD PERSON

We cannot solve all problems just by saying “let's raise good people.” Because even the most honest and meritorious people can be left alone within poorly designed institutions. For this reason, as much as we need good people, we also need a strong system based on the rule of law, transparency, independent and effective supervision, accountability, merit, rules that prevent conflicts of interest, and real competition.

The basic measure of a good system is clear: Rules should not change according to people, they should be applied to everyone under the same conditions, and decisions should be predictable. From economy to education, from sports to public administration, trust only becomes permanent in an order where institutions act according to principles, not people.

The logic of good institutions is also actually simple: To make it easier for good people to act correctly, and to make it difficult for ill-intentioned people to do wrong.

Because a bad system, over time, also forces the good person to face a difficult choice: Either they will adapt to the system or they will move away from the system. Yet, we need to build a third way: An order where honest people can remain honest, meritorious people can rise, and those who follow the rules do not lose.

For this reason, Turkey's issue is not just raising good people. We also have to protect, encourage, keep in the country, and carry the good person to the place they deserve.

Because strong societies are built not only by the presence of good people, but by strong institutions that protect goodness, reward merit, and limit injustice.

CONCLUSION: Good Person, Strong Institution, Fair System

A country's future is determined not only by its economic size, technology, or the resources it possesses; it is also determined by the morality of its people, the strength of its institutions, and the justice of its system. For this reason, perhaps we should start by rethinking the meaning of the word “success.”

Earning a lot of money may be success; but how you earn it is also important. Reaching a high position may be success; but how you got there and how you use that position is also important. Winning an election is political success; but how you protect the voter's will is also important. Becoming a champion is success; but by which path you became a champion is also important.

Because true success is not just reaching the result; it is reaching the result by the right path, by deserving it, and without giving up your values.

Turkey needs more people with diplomas; but it needs people who will not stoop to fake diplomas more. We need successful politicians; but we need politicians who see the position not as personal fortune, but as a tool for serving the nation more. We need qualified bureaucrats; but we need bureaucrats who see public duty not as a privilege but as a trust more.

We need successful business people; but we need business people who earn their income not from rent and privilege, but from production, labor, innovation, and competition more. We need champion athletes; but we need athletes who do not give up their morality and sense of justice for the sake of winning more.

Because the true development of a country is measured not only by what it produces, but how it produces; not by how much it earns, but how it earns; not by whom it appoints, but why it appoints; not by what success it reaches, but by what path it reaches that success.

Of course, we need legal and institutional regulations that will strengthen political morality, ethical principles in public administration, and honest competition in economic life. However, no law, supervisory mechanism, or institutional regulation can create a moral society on its own. The foundation of this is laid in childhood.

For this reason, we must teach our children not only to be successful, but to deserve success; not only to win, but to win by deserving; not only to have a good profession, but to be a good person first.

But raising a good person is not enough. We must also build strong institutions and a fair system where good people can remain honest, labor finds its reward, merit is rewarded, and those who follow the rules do not lose.

Because the values that protect the investor's money in the fund market, the fan's sense of justice in football, the voter's will in politics, the young person's labor in exams, and the citizen's life in disasters are essentially the same:

Morality, justice, merit, and trust.

The areas change; but the values that need to be protected do not.

Let's return to the question we asked at the beginning: What is a country's greatest loss?

The truly great loss is not just losing its money, economic power, or skilled people. The truly great loss is when good people begin to believe that being good no longer has any meaning.

When the honest person says “There is no reward for my honesty,” the working young person says “There is no reward for my labor,” the meritorious public official says “There is no reward for my knowledge and experience,” and the entrepreneur says “There is a reward not for producing, but for being close to the right people,” we begin to lose not only our people, but a country's belief in the future.

We must not allow this. Turkey's real development issue starts right here: Good Person + Strong Institution + Fair System

Because for a person to remain good, they need institutions that protect them; and for institutions to work correctly, they need a system that takes justice, merit, transparency, and accountability as its basis. This is the common lesson of the crises we are experiencing: Where loyalty replaces merit, privilege replaces rights, and self-interest replaces morality, the price is paid by the entire society sooner or later.

For this reason, our greatest responsibility to the future is not just to leave behind a richer, stronger, or more successful Turkey. It is to leave behind a Turkey where honesty does not lose, labor finds its reward, merit raises, justice does not change according to the person, and good people can remain good.

Because the path to a strong and reliable Turkey passes through raising good people, creating strong institutions that protect the good person, and establishing a system that works fairly for everyone.