Politicians' strange priorities

The deliberations on the constitutional amendment that have been going on in the TBMM for the past few days yield examples that could serve as perfect lessons in the sociology of politics. For those who claim that politics can be conducted on a deliberative basis, that democracy can function as a regime of consensus, and that political agreement is simply a matter of healthy political communication, these are rather discouraging and disappointing scenes.

First of all, no deliberation takes shape. The TBMM is not, and cannot be, a ground on which it is sought, through debate and deliberation, which mind is better or more beneficial for Turkey. The very strange nature of politics makes itself felt again, and the TBMM becomes the stage for the war maneuvers of actors who constantly gnash their teeth at one another, who cannot get out of the spiral of love and hatred, and who make all their choices accordingly.

In theory, every Member of Parliament is thought of as an actor who is alone with his conscience during the debates in the Assembly and who can be persuaded of something better by the evidence or arguments presented on that ground and change his mind. Yet in this battle arena it is out of the question for any deputy either to listen to or to be persuaded by any evidence or argument presented. Nor is the deciding factor in anyone's insistence on a particular opinion or stance a lack or excess of information. The fact that opinions, or political wills on certain issues, are determined in advance and packaged, and that a party organization is represented in proportion to its weight in parliament, takes the Assembly away from its defined consultative character, but brings it that much closer to politics. This is a somewhat intricate situation, but it shows that the meaning assigned to the Assembly in democracies remains too naive in the face of this conflictual nature inherent in politics.

That many deputies take the floor and read at length texts that evidently are not their own, merely so that the Assembly's work is disrupted, produces comic images on the one hand, but on the other makes one feel all the more that the Assembly is not an environment of debate and deliberation but a field of tactical warfare and maneuver.

What is happening in the assembly today shows that the primary priorities of politicians are not readily connected with "goods" such as the country's interest, service to humanity, democracy, or the development of rights. On the contrary, the primary priority becomes the elimination of rivals seen as enemies, and the willingness to risk blocking even any development that may benefit them but is in essence a "good."

Just look: many of the amendment proposals being debated in the TBMM in fact express views that have been voiced and defended in different forms, at different times, by all the parties represented in the Assembly. Perhaps the part concerning judicial reform never crossed the mind of the CHP alone, but the other parts are at least matters on which all of them could, at different times, not have failed to reach agreement. Moreover, the CHP had said that if the part concerning the judiciary were separated from the package, it could respond positively to the rest. In that case it could have been expected to support those outside the articles in question. Yet because the three articles it demanded were not removed, it carries out objections, submits motions and puts forward counterarguments on the very same articles that it said it could normally support, on the grounds of contradictions or violations of law. So, had the three articles in question been removed, what would the objections it voices today on the other articles have become? If the situation is so grave, how would it then have been overlooked merely for the sake of not touching the judiciary?

And what about the BDP? Does anyone understand what its objection is to a change that it itself sees and accepts very well will bring a leap in the level of constitutional citizenship? Because it does not include a provision on election thresholds, how and why can one oppose these provisions to which, in essence, there is no objection to any article? Is any progress recorded on election thresholds when these are voted down? Of course political agreement is at the same time an entirely legitimate subject of debate and bargaining, but why object, in the course of a bargain, to these changes that could be so much in their favor that others would be expected to make concessions on top of them?

Does saying that it will trail behind neither the AKP nor the CHP and MHP currently save the BDP from de facto standing in the same ranks as the MHP and CHP? When the history of today is written, in this event that will be counted as an important stage in the development of Turkish democracy, where will the BDP's stance be recorded?