Istiklal or devlet

In order for Turkey to move toward a Western political identity it must leave the concept of devlet behind. The word itself means “state”, but the concept is supposed to be understood by all Turks to mean that the political elite are superior in their knowledge of what is best for the country. Most importantly this notion of national guidance is known for its intolerance of freethinking Turkish citizens. The focal point of Turkish unity organized under devlet would be threatened if freethinking were to be legal in the country. There are numerous ways in which this ideal disables freethinking Turkish people. First, it creates a false cohesion and national identity among the citizens. Historically, the people of Turkey have not made political decisions and seen their will carried out by leaders; therefore the natural instinct is to believe that the state is acting in their best interest and that it must know better than they. Further, open criticism of military and state is not legal so there must be an element of fear among the people to openly discuss and criticize the political decisions. This would lead to an environment where political decisions are accepted and followed by the population of Turkish citizens whether or not they agreed with the state.
At first I thought that the countless display of the Turkish flag was significant to the progress of Turkey. That the country had entered a period where national identity and pride is defining in modern society. In his book, Crescent and Star, Stephen Kinzer speaks to the lack of a true Turkish identity. He explains that the reason that Turkish people are not more assertive in political decisions and state affairs is embedded in their history. For centuries they have believed that the individual is less important than the collective. The collective is defined by the family or the clan. This is important because in a democratic society there must be elements of civic duty. There is seemingly no sense of civic duty in Turkey. They have learned to serve their families not their communities. After learning more about the nature of the Turkish citizen and their political involvement I found myself wanting to know more about the nature of the government.
Although political sentiment is developed over time the military element of modern Turkish government is the main barrier to complete democracy. The country’s governmental structure is democratic in the sense that it is a Parliamentary system. The Parliament lacks power to truly govern because the implementation of law is in the hands of the military. The Constitution provides limitation on the powers of Parliament and in the name of the law extends power to the military, furthering the inability of Parliament to balance the structure of government power. The purpose of the National Security Council, established in 1961, is said to exist to protect law and order, but it is a governmental organization that has ultimate power and its members are only held accountable to one another. It is in the best interest of Turkey to rid its system of this imbalance within. The consequences may be too dear if it does not change. The National Security Council and the military are the reason that freedom of speech and journalism is limited in Turkey. They are the cause of many human rights violations, and ultimately the reason that Turkey is not truly democratic. There are two major consequences to this system. First, the military institution only continues to get stronger. The best schools are military in nature and their graduates often are more educated and have more opportunity in working for the government. This only furthers the cycle of military rule. Second, the extreme military influence will keep Turkey from being a viable candidate for European Union entry. The county would need to give up its “half democracy” and move forward toward more western ideals. This would mean turning away from devlet and toward istiklal. This word means independence, but one trip down Istanbul’s famous istiklal Avenue, and you can understand what implications the word could have in government. Freedom, choice, variety, all are words that I would use to describe Turkey without the concept of devlet.