Being partners of the state

Prof. Mümtazer Türköne
Prof. Mümtazer Türköne


Date posted: January 14, 2014

MÜMTAZER TÜRKÖNE

The freshly appointed justice minister, using phrases not easily understandable to people in the streets, said, “Neither God nor the state accepts partners.” This statement does not have an Islamic background.

Rather, it is reminiscent of Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” or Bousset’s definition of monarchy. It draws parallels between the oneness and power of God and the uniqueness of the state in an effort to justify absolute monarchy. Amid this debate, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu recalled the Ottoman state tradition of killing crown princes in order to eliminate potential rivals for the throne. These are the arguments the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) comes up with to defend against the corruption investigations. The state is one, it cannot be divided and it does not accept partners. For this reason, the investigations conducted by the judiciary are perceived as an effort to establish an unfair tutelage over the state power.

You cannot justify the ruling AK Party without siding with a political system that openly rejects the mechanism of checks and balances and constitutional democracies’ principle of separation of powers. Pluralization of the state power, widespread legal and political review, popular participation in political decisions at every level and recognition of citizens not as the governed subjects, but as stakeholders, are some of the established concepts of modern democracies. Monopolization, unaccountability and the uncontrolled use of political power are unacceptable in today’s world.

The prime minister complains that the higher judicial council — the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) — became completely independent with the constitutional amendments accepted in the 2010 referendum. The judiciary is independent, and this contradicts with the state order, he argues. The purpose of the new bill on the HYSK — which is currently being debated with much fighting at Parliament — is to make the judiciary subordinate to the executive branch. The prime minister publicly rejects the independence of the judiciary. As a matter of fact, this represents a regression that is worse than the argument that the state does not accept partners or the suggestion that rival brothers can be killed for the sake of the state. Even these extremist state practices would accept a partially autonomous judicial mechanism.

Do Turkey’s historical cultural codes and state traditions contradict democracy and a reviewable state system? We are forced to say “yes” to this question if we look at how in 11 years the AK Party has evolved into its current form. If single, absolute, indivisible, inalienable and continuous sovereignty, as defined by Jean Bodin, is produced, we need to look for the reasons not in history or culture, but in the very nature of politics. During the last 11 years, the AK Party purged its powerful rivals within the state. But as it just started to assume that it had taken the state under its complete control, the tower it had built with cards was brought to the ground. Unrivaled power suddenly collapsed and lost its strength with an investigation launched by two prosecutors. The government is now trying to survive the judicial review by relying on its parliamentary majority.

The government had channeled lucre from urban development projects and public tenders to a fund that it used to finance political activities. The ongoing investigations are revealing how this fund was established and run. The most serious crime a political party can commit in a democracy is to create and employ such secret funds. Not only the judicial investigations, but also other political developments are proof of the existence of such a fund. In such a case, the only way out for the government is to halt all reviewing mechanisms of democracy and law. It is for this reason that it purports extremist ideas, like that the state does not accept partners, as well as views that are reminiscent of advocating an absolute monarchy.

But every citizen is a partner of the state. The duty of a government is to perform common tasks in the name of these partners and based on the mandate given to it. As this simple principle will eventually prevail, there is no need to worry.

Source: Todays Zaman , January 13, 2014


Related News

Angela Merkel, Meeting With Erdogan in Turkey, Emphasizes Free Speech

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany emphasized the importance of freedom of opinion in talks with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey on Thursday, during a visit meant to help improve frayed ties between the two NATO allies.

Government media runs riot in smear campaign against Hizmet

A news article in Daily Sabah, the new, English-language member of the government’s media lineup, claimed on Monday that the police are ratcheting up measures to patch holes in their security network in order to prevent leaks by Gülenists, a derogatory term used to describe the Hizmet movement.

Another dismissed gov’t employee abducted in black van in Turkey’s capital: wife

Yet another post-coup victim was forced into a black van in broad daylight in Turkey’s capital province of Ankara, according to a family member.

Turkish families cope with aftermath of failed coup

“Even if you get more civilian control, it’s not more democratic,” Lars Haugom, a Norwegian expert on Turkish army, said. “It seems to be about party control, with [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan and the AKP seeking to strengthen their control of the military.” Ceren, a general’s daughter, fears there’s little left to stop the authoritarian Erdogan now. “No one can say no to him,” she said. “This is his kingdom now.”

Ex-employee files complaint against TİB head over purge

An email claimed that the agency tampered with its system logs to fabricate evidence that the “parallel state,” a term the government uses to describe the Hizmet movement, had listened in on around 2,000 people. The message said the electronic serial numbers (ESNs) of these people were entered into the system as per instructions from TİB President Çelik and then erased — all to make it look like the Hizmet movement had spied on Turkish citizens and then covered its tracks.

Why the West ‘failed to understand’ Turkey

Erdoğan has exploited the presence of Gülen-inspired people in the state bureaucracy as a tool to silence all opposition and grasp yet more power. If the Gülen movement did not exist, the president would have needed to create another “enemy of the state” to fight against in order to reach his ultimate aim.

Latest News

Turkish inmate jailed over alleged Gülen links dies of heart attack in prison

Message of Condemnation and Condolences for Mass Shooting at Bondi Beach, Sydney

Media executive Hidayet Karaca marks 11th year in prison over alleged links to Gülen movement

ECtHR faults Turkey for convictions of 2,420 applicants over Gülen links in follow-up to 2023 judgment

New Book Exposes Erdoğan’s “Civil Death Project” Targeting the Hizmet Movement

European Human Rights Treaty Faces Legal And Political Tests

ECtHR rejects Turkey’s appeal, clearing path for retrials in Gülen-linked cases

Erdoğan’s Civil Death Project’ : The ‘politicide’ spanning more than a decade

Fethullah Gülen’s Vision and the Purpose of Hizmet

In Case You Missed It

A Genocide in the Making – Genocidal action stage by stage by the Turkish government against the Hizmet movement

US says it does not consider Gülen movement a terror organization

İpek Holding chairman denies reports about alleged mansion for Gülen

Ideal human, ideal society in Gulen’s philosophy

Erdoğan and AK Party deputies split over hate speech against Hizmet

Hizmet and March 30 elections: What happened? (I)

Erdoğan’s house of cards

Copyright 2026 Hizmet News