The Eurasian Global Research Centre [Avrasya Global Araştırmalar Merkezi], headed by the AKP Member of Parliament Prof. Dr. İdris Bal, has produced a report entitled ‘Analysis of the Taksim Events’. This report has sparked off much debate in the AKP. The following is my translation of the summary of this report as provided by the Radikal newspaper.
http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/gezid ... di-1145699THERE CAN BE NO DEMOCRACY FROM ELECTION TO ELECTION: Elections held at certain intervals, a necessary part of the multi-party system, are an absolute precondition for democracy. Of course, democracies do not consist purely of elections held at regular intervals. That is to say, no party or leader is entitled to say, ‘You have now appointed me, do not interfere with me until the next election.’
DIALOGUE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN: At the outset, the Taksim events were staged by people who were environmentally conscious and small in number. But, as a result of the nature of the intervention directed at this seemingly small number of environmentally conscious people and the failure to engage in adequate dialogue with them, with the entry into the arena of various factions who had probably been waiting for the opportunity, the content and form of the events changed entirely and the events ceased to be about what had happened or would happen in Taksim and turned rather into an outpouring of dissatisfaction and rage against, chiefly, the Esteemed Prime-Minister and, to a second degree, the government.
THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT THE PROJECT: In countries where first-class democracy is in existence, all projects relating to spaces that the people have made their own and are in open view are conducted in consultation with the people and after having obtained the people’s consent. For, in democracies, the source of legitimacy is the people. In Taksim, public opinion was not gauged adequately and the process was not taken forward in consultation with the local people. This indicates that the project was seriously flawed even at the formulation stage. However, for a project such as a barracks, mosque, museum, mall or residential complex or even London’s Hyde Park, a variety of alternatives should be formulated and the people should be asked what these alternatives might be and then the alternatives should be set out. Then, whatever is felt to be the most desirable alternative should in one way or another be put forward to the people for approval. However, in the Taksim example, the people were not adequately consulted in the course of formulating the alternatives or as to the adoption of any alternative; even if we believed that this was the best alternative, the people were not adequately won over to our own truth.
IF DEMOCRATIC STEPS HAD BEEN TAKEN NO PROBLEM WOULD HAVE EMERGED: The central administration, and especially the Esteemed Prime-Minister, appeared, and was made to appear, to be the project’s owner, backer, planner and implementer. The mayors of neither Beyoğlu nor Istanbul Metropolitan municipalities appeared to be party to the project. The only backer appeared to be the Esteemed Prime-Minister and the government. Consequently, when the problem arose, to the first degree, the Esteemed Prime-Minister, to the second degree, the AK Party, to the third degree, the government and, to the fourth degree, the state became, and were made to be, protagonists in the problem. Whereas, if steps had been taken in keeping with democratic tradition, if a project concerning a local square had been worked on initially by Beyoğlu Municipality, if proposals and projects had been compiled in solidarity and consultation with the local people, if it had been given its final shape in cooperation with the metropolitan municipality and if the support of the people had been won in surveys and mini referenda, no problem would have arisen in any case.
THE PRIME-MINISTER WAS GIVEN THE WRONG GUIDANCE: Imagine that a problem arose and it turned out that the protagonist in the problem was, to the first degree, Beyoğlu Municipality and, to the second degree, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. In such a situation of crisis or chaos, the Esteemed Prime-Minister would, as head of the government, step in, not as a protagonist in the problem, but as a crisis solver, and if necessary could have made suggestions to the local administrators and could have acted as intermediary between the people and the administrators. Indeed, by way of political investment, if the Esteemed Prime-Minister had deemed the mayors to be at fault, he could have criticised them and even have suggested that in the future the party might continue at the local level under a new helm. However, the Esteemed Prime-Minister was given the wrong guidance and, in the way that it was portrayed to the public, even if this was not so, was made into the chief protagonist in the crisis. This was precisely a strategic error and an opportunity was given to the illegal factions waiting in lair that derive succour from chaos.
POLITICIANS MUST ACT RESPONSIBLY: The events that started in Taksim and spread throughout the country transformed into a problem which harmed our country, people, economy, image and diplomacy. As the events unfolded, they targeted, in particular, the Esteemed Prime-Minister, then the AK Party and the government. MHP leader Bahçeli’s warnings and his preventing one body of people from joining those groups was a praiseworthy stance. The same cannot be said of the CHP and BDP.
