Liberal dogmas that collapsed the economy and Turkey

The rising poverty in our country and the world, the deepening class divide, and the widening gap between the rich and the poor have shattered the dogmas regarding liberalism. It has led to a more robust questioning of globalization. However, at this point, no strong political movements emerged that were pro-labor, pro-equality, pro-independence, enlightened, and anti-imperialist. They could not create an alternative for power. The left, unable to free itself from the influence of liberalism and unable to abandon identity politics, just as in Turkey, failed to create excitement among laborers, the poor, and the broad masses of the people.

Yet, if they had started by advocating for populist and statist policies in essential public services, especially education and health, without worrying about "what others might say," and voiced these loudly, much progress would have been made. It was not done.

While there was a case to be made against privatizations—especially opposing the privatization of institutions that create employment, generate high profits, produce added value, and have strategic importance, both in procedure and substance—producing policies like "we will do privatization better, we will do it more transparently, we will sell it at its real price, not cheaply" did not deliver what was hoped for.

In short, even though the policy of "shrinking the state," which was constantly on Turgut Özal's lips and which deeply influenced a wide spectrum in our country from Islamists to nationalists, from center-rightists to social democrats, has gone bankrupt, no one has openly voiced this in politics.

That is why our country, since January 24, 1980, has followed a single economic program under the governments of different parties, as defined by our professors Bilsay Kuruç and Korkut Boratav.

Yet, there is no need to look far; if the reasons for the Ottoman Empire's economic collapse were studied well, it would be clearly understood what should not be done, and if the economic successes of the early Republican period were read carefully, it would be clearly understood what should be done.

For instance, as is known, the tobacco and cigarette sector in the Ottoman Empire was in the hands of the French. Italians, British, and Greeks operated the maritime routes. British, German, and French companies stood out in the railways.

We know from history the Decree of Muharrem dated 1881 (which was arranged during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II in accordance with the wishes of creditors to regulate debt repayment because the state could not pay its internal and external debts) and the Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt (Düyun-u Umumiye) established in accordance with this decree. We know about the seizure of collected taxes. We know that this administration stood out as a state within a state. And the most painful part is that we know Italy financed the Tripolitanian War with the loan it received from the Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt; that is, we know that the Ottoman State financed Italy in the war it waged against the Ottoman Empire with its own revenues.

The Ottoman-British Trade Treaty of 1838 (Treaty of Balta Liman) is one of the important dates in the economic and political collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The Edict of Tanzimat came the following year. While the Crimean War was ongoing (1853 – 1856), the Ottoman Empire took its first external loan in 1854. The Edict of Reform was announced in 1856. We know what happened afterward...

Therefore, when liberal economy, free market economy, open market, or the abolition of customs are mentioned, what comes to our minds is external dependency, becoming a semi-colony, the impoverishment of the people, and the plundering of public resources.