A politics of happiness against friend–enemy politics

The definition of politics as nothing but a friend-enemy relationship draws its strength largely from commonplace observations in the field of politics. It can present an abundant number of examples, indeed it proceeds from examples that the most ordinary observer of any kind can verify and see again and again. Proceeding from here, one can arrive at a generalization, an induction, and a typology of the politician.

The definition of the famous English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, describing man as "a wolf to man," fits this description of politics all too well. In fact, in this basic description, even the friends of politics facing its enemies ultimately become one another's enemies and begin to eat one another. That all revolutions are destined to devour their children is, in part, in keeping with this tragic description of man.

This description attributes evil to the essence of man, and since it also ascribes to him a savagery that must be bridled, it holds that the most suitable government for him would be a strong and despotic one (Leviethan). What kinds of regimes were paved the way for from there, and the theoretical ground of what kinds of politics was prepared, is well known.

Actually, there is never no alternative to seeing politics as a friend-enemy relationship. Islamic philosophers, proceeding from the broad vision of Islam, described politics on an entirely different basis: Tahsilu's-Saade, that is, "the attainment of happiness." The ultimate aim of politics is not to absolutize the category of enemy and wage a lawless struggle against it. Within this framework, it is not at all to absolutize friends in the face of the enemy and favor them beyond every moral measure.

In a politics reduced to the friend-enemy relationship, there is no need to treat the enemy justly. The rival seen as an enemy is a party against whom the scales of justice do not operate. He deserves every kind of treatment, discrimination, exclusion, injustice.

Yet the essence of politics as the attainment of happiness is to rule with justice toward all people. Justice is the foundation of mülk, that is, of government, just as it is the foundation of happiness. And it is essential that this happiness embrace everyone within the sphere of rule.

Justice is not observed only among people belonging to a certain circle of friendship, to the same group, nation, party; it is established in the same way between that circle and those in other circles. Even an anger or hostility that has arisen toward a people for one reason or another does not lead one to injustice against the people belonging to that people. If it does, that is no longer called justice.

For a whole society to be happy is of course very difficult, perhaps a utopian process in the face of practical obstacles, but this is the goal of politics for a Muslim politician. Perhaps one of the most difficult obstacles is those who perceive politics as enmity. Even if you extend a friendly hand, they continue their enmity openly or covertly. With the grudge they harbor inside, they can succeed in dragging out and neutralizing even just conduct.

The language of rancor, hatred and hostility that dominates the tongues of those who complain most about the polarization of politics today in fact also shows the encounter of two styles of politics. Nobody has heard from the opposition any proposal for a politics that would make society happier, that could make everyone together happier and more peaceful. All the discourses and actions are directed at excluding a certain segment of society, indeed at deeming even a discrimination appropriate against them.

In fact, one of the actions that best reflected the political claims of the CHP opposition was the Republic rallies (2007), and the language displayed there also underlined all of its subsequent political claims. Those rallies, which formed one of the most widely attended social movements of Türkiye's recent past, were not, for instance, a demand for rights against a discrimination or a claim of a usurped right. On the contrary, they were an instructive movement wanting the continuation of a discrimination being carried out against a certain segment of society. Hundreds of thousands of people were gathering to argue that the great majority of society (the devout conservative segment) could not, and should not, have equal rights in Türkiye.

The people are the people, the rally is the rally, the demonstration is the demonstration. All the symbols of democracy can be motivated to institutionalize a rancor and hatred against the great majority of society. In such a political movement a small minority was demanding, for its own happiness, the unhappiness of the great popular majority.

Of course, this is a happiness that has nothing to do with the tahsilu-Saade principle of Islamic political philosophy. To covet a happiness secured through injustice, wrong and discrimination against others, that is, thanks to someone else's unhappiness, does not ultimately make a person happy either. After the temporary drug-happiness that such politics gives, there is only disappointment.

It is clear that the CHP's Mayor of Bolu has made some people happy with the primitive racism he displayed as if saving the homeland. That the primitiveness displayed was accepted unanimously by all the CHP members of the municipal council is also a serious sign of what CHP politics promises the country and society. What good can come to anyone from an approach that perceives the foreigner as an enemy and deems wolfishness appropriate for him? That aptitude for wolfishness turns and works against its own people too, and in the end eats its own friends as well.

Is the treatment the CHP has deemed fit for the country for years really unrelated to the infighting within itself?