A look at Republic week

The Republic is older than I am, but I remember the enthusiasm of the 25th-anniversary celebrations of the Republic very clearly. Unfortunately, it would not be wrong to say, 'There is not even a trace of such enthusiasm today.' I do not have much to say for now on whether it is correct to attribute the reason for this conclusion to the mistakes of politicians or to the malice of the capitalist system we are going through. With the promise of a detailed examination in the future, let us suffice with briefly touching upon this subject today.

In order to understand the lack of enthusiasm we are experiencing as we close the first century of the Republic of Turkey and to plan for the future, it is essential to perceive and interpret the dimensions of relations with the capitalist world, as well as the conditions and principles of its establishment.

As the Ottoman Empire was collapsing, the solution in the minds of Westerners was most likely to occupy and partition Turkey, which stood at the gateway to the Soviet Union's expansion to the south, or to raise it as a state dependent on the West. After the wars were won and the state was established, it was decided at the Economic Congress, which was gathered in İzmir after a break from the Lausanne negotiations, whether the construction of the economy would be carried out in cooperation with the capitalist world or by adopting the system of the northern neighbor.

Integrating into the capitalist system with the promise given to the West was also the natural result of the system of thought inherited from the Ottomans. Theory also dictated this!

Thus, the first strong industrialization period in the newly established state began with the implementation of Statism. Although the view of national industrialization prevailed in the minds of the founders, the dance with central countries/imperialism in economic moves must be read well, stripped of all rhetoric and emotional perceptions. While examining the issue of why the young Republic, which started the race behind even the first industrial stage at its inception, is still struggling in these areas today despite a whole century having passed, the influence of imperialism must be read and interpreted well.

While Turkey experienced its first strong industrialization move during the Statism period, the fact that laborers were not granted a say in capital and management is an indicator that the path of the system was drawn as capitalism. The fact that the capitalist world was experiencing its second deep crisis while the statism policy was being implemented in Turkey was an advantage in terms of capital accumulation. The failure to embark on a path of raising awareness among the laboring segments in this environment of economic advantage has created a significant obstacle to the formation of social consciousness and the development of a labor culture. However, it is clear that the policies followed during this period point to today as an indicator of the socio-political path entered. Characterizing the statism policy followed as state capitalism is very natural and correct in this respect.

The Golden Age experienced in Europe and the entire Western world after the Second World War, while developing the capital of central countries, led Turkey to a moratorium with the market-creation policy for this process through the outward-oriented economic model of the 1950s, known as the transition to the multi-party democracy period.

In the words of Rosa Luxemburg, the country, which was dragged into commercial imperialism, closed this period with a crisis in a position of needing external support. In line with the 1961 Constitution adopted as a result of the 1960 coup, the second industrialization move was entered into with five-year plans on one hand, and import-substitution and protectionist policies on the other. However, due to various external and internal reasons, the plans after the second five-year plan were ignored, being reduced to the status of documents to be kept on the shelf.

Süleyman Demirel's famous expression “our people want rice, not plans” also immediately pushed the plans completely out of commission. The assembly imperialism applied at the stage where planning was swept under the rug also unfortunately caused the creation of an inefficient industrial structure as a result of the absolutely closed application.

Although projects to close the current account deficit through exports were developed in the early 1980s, when the inefficient and backward industrial structure of the past did not allow for this, financial breakthroughs were necessarily turned to, and the famous hot money period, from which we still cannot escape, was put into effect. While the hot money process temporarily financed the current account deficit on one hand, it caused the current account deficit to increase by pumping imports on the other. The vicious cycle experienced masked the collapse of the economy by creating fake bubbles internally at the expense of a rising current account deficit. Since this period coincided with the global financial stage, it can be characterized as the period of financial imperialism. As in all periods of exploitation, it could not be realized that the fake rises and glitters experienced in this period were made with external borrowing, and the country drifted into increasingly heavy debt stocks. This period was closed with a deep crisis with the crises and drifts of the 1990s.

In 1999, a program titled “Transition to a Strong Economy” was implemented in 2000 for the economy, which had entered under IMF supervision. This program, referred to as the IMF – Derviş program, served as a perfect fit for the AKP government. The country, which was tasked with a market function for the central capital in crisis by opening up to the uncontrolled outside world with this program, was dragged into financial responsibility that would bind even future generations as a result of unplanned and unprogrammed investment programs it entered into with multinational companies through neoliberal imperialism policies.

Privatizations, the opening of the economy to the uncontrolled outside world, and the making of long-term payment-guaranteed agreements with multinational companies left the country alone with promises of payment in the long term. Indeed, the recent crisis we are experiencing is a result of the debt that all these projects and marches have dumped on the people of the country.

As we close the first century, we are experiencing two misfortunes that have come one after another. First, the process known as the third deep crisis of capitalism continues to deepen. The crisis experienced in central countries reflects negatively on Turkey through capital movements and commercial transactions.

Second, the AKP, which has been in power for 20 years, occupying one-fifth of the hundred-year Republic period, has opened the country to commercialization in almost every field with the harshest neoliberal policies, causing public policies to regress, and has abandoned some of them. While this situation causes resource transfer out of the country on one hand, it also disrupts income distribution, erodes the middle class, and deepens poverty.

The image presented schematically is not heartening. Even more dire than this is the impossibility of being hopeful about the future of a society where education, justice, morality, and even sacred feelings are deeply eroded. That is why talented and well-educated young people in various professions see their future not in this country, but in migrating to advanced economies. In Shakespeare's pithy expression, “what is experienced is not darkness, but ignorance!”

Despite everything, I celebrate the centenary of the Republic with respect, with the belief that the common sense of the nation is strong enough to dispel the dark clouds and carry the country to happy futures.