On the anniversary of the disaster of the century: our cities and our debts

Thinking about the city is the best way of thinking about ourselves and understanding ourselves. As we are in the process of choosing those who aspire to govern our cities, let us continue to ask fundamental questions and to hold up a light and a mirror to ourselves. In the face of the disaster of the century that struck our country exactly one year ago, our cities, in a sense, confronted us very painfully with the debts that we have loaded onto one another and postponed for generations.

The disaster brought before us by unpaid debts, unfulfilled responsibilities, and neglect was also a trial for this generation. In this trial, some, as they always do, responded without assuming any responsibility, denying their debts. A significant portion of our people, by contrast, rushed to help in the face of this disaster, taking on the debts they remembered, even the debts of others. Thus the disaster of the century also let us live through the solidarity event of the century.

From the very first hours of this disaster, which many countries in the world could easily have been crushed under, this nation, with its people, its state, and indeed its entire geography of the heart, managed to come through with nobility, unity, and togetherness. Within two weeks the foundations of new homes began to be laid in place of the collapsed dwellings. With the homes handed over to the disaster victims at the anniversary, together with those still under way, it is fitting to say that we have written a new epic for the whole world. On the horizon of this epic, praying to God for mercy upon our people who lost their lives in the earthquake, offering condolences, patience, and fortitude to those left behind, and congratulating all our people for the solidarity of the century they displayed in the face of this disaster, let us continue thinking about the city.

We said that the city is the place where human beings can realize their dreams about the world with all their capacities, reflect their ideals, follow their values, and put forth their designs.

That is why great states, states with claims from the outset, have tried to put forth their claims through the cities they founded.

Alexander the Great, influenced by Aristotle's philosophy of the state, is famous, on his celebrated great expedition to the East (interpreting his master in his own way, of course, even in ways his master did not mean), also for the cities he founded. It is known that in all the cities he founded there was a marvelous foresight that saw what came afterward very well, and an order.

Indeed, what gave direction to these cities of his, with their squares, streets, bazaar, and the arrangement of all the streets opening onto the square, in which people could live, was not only Alexander's philosophical design in his head but also the bad experiences of the legendary city of Athens.

Athens is regarded as the cradle of democracy, but with its narrow streets where two horses or donkeys could hardly pass side by side, its extremely chaotic urban structure, and its bad municipal services, it was in fact a place with a very low quality of life.

One of the things that reduced the quality of life, strange as it may sound, was perhaps its democracy. In a city where different balances of power operated, elements that could not be made to listen, urban initiatives or actors that could not be governed from the center, by setting up their homes and carrying out their activities wherever they wished, pushed the city into a chaotic state in which establishing order was very difficult. There was democracy in the city, but at the same time it operated with an effect that destroyed people's responsibilities toward one another in the city.

The city needed to be designed differently. An authority was also needed that would watch over people's rights toward one another and that could know the common good and establish it. Alexander could not fix Athens or the established Greek cities, but he would set out in search of realizing this ideal in the new cities he would found from scratch.

Of course, founding the city with this discipline and creating a structure in accordance with the cosmos required a state authority. Indeed, according to Ibn Khaldun, the first emergence of the phenomenon of the city required strong state wills.

True, we have now passed the stage of founding. That is, in cities founded from scratch it is possible to do many things, but what about the situation in cities founded long ago, which in every era have been subjected to different treatments under different philosophies, interests, or initiatives and have turned into complete living mounds?

As if the ruthless destruction of the old with a complete historical vandalism were not enough, even in newly founded places, cities that cannot see five years ahead and that become clogged within a short time in terms of both traffic flow and building density: the work of what philosophy, what character, what lack of faith are they?

In the cities founded in the past, the development of the city fifty or a hundred years later was taken into account, the needs of the cities where the grandchildren would live were foreseen, and suitable cities were built accordingly. What is interesting is that today, despite so much accumulated history and experience, in the cities founded in our day things are done with a haste that does not take into account even a few years ahead. The adequate road width and car park size that the huge blocks built one after another will need are not calculated, and these new districts of the city begin to suffocate very soon after being built.

The problems we complain so much about today, concerning cities having no identity, stem largely from this lack of foresight. But the matter is not only a lack of foresight; of course it has serious dimensions concerning our understanding of responsibility.

Responsibility should in fact be the first and most fundamental value and feeling of being a city-dweller. The state of being a city-dweller begins with the realization of our responsibility toward others.

The city was named medina by our Prophet. We say Medina is the name of civilization, but civilization (medeniyet) was in fact named in reference to Medina. What is essential is Medina, not civility (medenilik), that is, in the Western expression, civility.

Medina, in turn, is derived from the word din. Medina is the place where religion is lived in its most ideal form, where the ideals of religion, the human relations it envisages, are lived in their most ideal form, in accordance with the essence of tawhid, leaving no room for servitude to a servant. The word of the same origin as din is deyn.

That means debt. Medina, that is, the city, expresses at its core the indebtedness of the human being.

The person living in the city is indebted to the other people in the city. Sociologically, because of the division of labor in the city, everyone is indebted for the comfort he lives in to other people who are doing their part in the division of labor. The most important way to pay this debt is for him too to do the job he has taken on in this division of labor in the best way, with a love of worship, as if paying his debt, as if paying the expiation for his sins. Every undertaking that falls below that is an unpaid debt, that is, religion left incomplete.

Everyone living in the city is indebted to everyone. And everyone is indebted to God, the owner of religion. God is the pursuer and guarantor of all debts. One who neglects to fulfill his responsibilities toward others has in fact committed a crime against God.

Within the division of labor that city life imposes by itself, no one is exempt from debt. Of course, depending on the nature of the duties, the debt may be greater, but everyone owes his existence in this city to the services of others.

Our civility begins first with recognizing this debt and resolving to pay it.

Just as it is not permissible for those who do not know and do not recognize this debt to take on the management of a city, governing a society made up of those who do not feel this debt is also a wholly different trial.