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

German intel expert says, based on CIA, BND reports, Erdoğan was behind failed coup

German intelligence expert and author Erich Schmidt-Eenboom has said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, not the faith-based Gülen movement, was behind a failed coup attempt in Turkey on July 15, 2016 based on intelligence reports from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND).

Oligarchic clique’s devious plans

Şahin, a longtime friend and political partner of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, insisted that “the government is run by a small oligarchy of elites in a way that excludes broad segments of the party constituency and the Turkish people.”

‘Parallel state’ and ‘theft of national will’

There is not a single piece of concrete evidence indicating that prosecutors and police officers had acted in contravention of laws and regulations in the investigation into the corruption claims that implicated some former Cabinet members and their sons. However, these public officials who performed their lawful duties in full compliance with the principles of transparency, accountability and equality — which are fundamental characteristics of the regimes that uphold the rule of law — were recklessly accused by the prime minister and his cronies of being the “parallel state.

‘Let my husband go to another country, just not Turkey’

Turkish citizen Turgay Karaman fears being deported back to Turkey, his wife Ayse Gul said today. “If his arrest has anything to do with political matters, and if the Malaysian authorities don’t want him here, they can send him to any other country but just not Turkey, because they will torture him there,” she told a press conference after the meeting.

Is the Hizmet movement statist or populist?

In the last three years the AK Party established their new “center” with the new statism away from the periphery. The Hizmet movement viewed this change as a new centralization and thus a new statism and tutelage with new political and capitalist actors. Due to this change in attitude, the Hizmet movement broke faith with Erdoğan and the AK Party.

GYV says Gülen did not send letter to Erdoğan

“In those days [of the corruption debate], it was conveyed to us that President Abdullah Gül, having held meetings with various groups in the name of peace for the nation and to prevent debates from escalating further, wished to send an envoy to Gülen to transmit his thoughts as well as to learn Gülen’s considerations,” Şimşek explained.

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

Water Well Constructed in Uganda in Memory of Slain Journalist

Light Academy schools groom global citizens

Sareshwala: Agitation and confrontation doesn’t get Muslims anywhere

London newspaper forced to shut as Erdogan allies seek vengeance

Turkey After the July Coup Attempt – Alan Makovsky’s testimony before Committee on Foreign Affairs

Dialogue and Friendship Dinner in Portland, Oregon

THY’s Topçu defends embargo on papers, defamation campaign

Copyright 2026 Hizmet News