1

A cultural burden of Turkey: political culture

Culture is a method of mental programming that determines people's understandings, norms, values and beliefs in a society. During
childhood, children absorb the practices they observe from elders, families and societies in which they live. Then, they start to imitate
these attitudes. Thus culture is transferred to the new generation. This cultural transmission or mental programming is completed
around 10-15 years of age. It hardly changes overnight. It takes generations and centuries to alter.
Each culture is separated from one another by the daily behaviors and habits of members of that society. Members of a culture share an
embedded cultural code. The code determines habits of how to eat, how to believe, how to love, how to sleep, how to behave and how
to think and what right and what wrong is.
Political culture is formed by perception, beliefs, behavior of individuals related to governing, government and state. History, religion,
ethnicity, language and geography shape the political culture of a society.
Turkish political culture can be characterized as state-centered, bureaucratic and authoritarian.
It inherited a great deal of traditional Ottoman political culture. The paternalistic Ottoman understanding was transferred to the new
Republic of Turkey. This is the idea that the state is the father of the citizens, who are also seen as children. It loves or chastises its
subjects depending on necessity. Disobedience or challenge to the father carries deadly risks. Additionally, according to the
constitution, the nation and country belong to the state. It explicitly confirms the paternalist nature of the state and it means the state
is greater than its citizens.
Modern Turkey was founded through a top-down and authoritarian process. A small, enlightened elite established the state and aimed
to create a homogeneous society. It is widely called Jacobin modernization. The state is considered a separate machine over society to
make citizens modern and civilized. The modernization process was understood as a mechanical procedure.
The elite, sometimes called the bureaucratic elite, became the conductor of the machine. The elite aimed to realize a mission
civilisatrice independent from political actors.
The elite regarded citizens as uneducated and backward subjects of the state. State institutions, especially the bureaucracy, press,
educational and military institutions, became the primary tools in raising new citizens. The institutions taught the citizens to obey and
submit to the state.
Citizens existed for the sake of the state, not the reverse. Citizens were accountable to the state, however, they cannot question the
state. Questioning the state might damage public interest. The state was not recognized as being part of a social contract.
The elite repeatedly emphasized that the state had internal and external enemies. Therefore, by any means, its subjects should always
be ready to protect the state from them. Providing national security, the elite advised citizens -- always in line with the state's interest
as defined by them. If the citizens did did not oblige, they would be branded treasonous or collaborators with the state's enemies.
The state was blessed and presented as almighty, a holy state. This holiness was even adopted in the Turkish Constitution. Under this
metaphysical formation, citizens were expected to be aware that they did not know what the bureaucratic elites know about state's
interests.
Unity, integrity, security, existence and survival of the state was the main responsibility of the elite. In order to save the state, the elite
had civil responsibility to govern the subjects. The idea gave them unlimited and uncontrolled power. Whoever was governing
politically, under the tutelage of the elite, the mission continued.
Instead of limited state (government), the elite aimed to limit citizens in terms of rights and liberties. Citizens were reminded of their
liabilities and responsibilities, not with their rights. Freedom was always given, not taken. When citizens tried to voice demands, the
state intervened harshly and crushed them. This made citizens unresponsive. Citizens have never enjoyed qualified rights and liberties
by Western standards.

2
In relations between the state and citizens, the state has always been right and superior. This unequal relationship made the citizens
passive, meek, cowardly and weak vis-a-vis the state.
In Anatolian lands, problems have been solved through violence. We are not capable of talking or negotiating on issues to gain a
compromise. The state has always used physical violations against rights and liberty in response to the demands of citizens or groups.
Lack of consensus and compromise in state and citizens' relations did not favor the capacity building of society in terms of having
discussion, free expression, criticism and innovation.
Considering them threats to be eliminated, the state did not let citizens to form civil society organizations up until the last two decades.
On the one hand, citizens did not find any opportunity to improve by taking individual initiatives for social and political issues. Society
did not gain autonomy from the state. On the other hand, the society did not imagine itself apart from state. This understanding created
defective citizens who wait for everything to come from the state.
The military played a crucial role in the creation of the new nation. Compulsory military service was set and militarism was
encouraged. In the military service, the holiness of the state was reiterated and the power of the military was carefully experienced.
Citizens were crushed psychologically. Even today, for many, the state is identified with the military, not Parliament. The elite
designed the military to bring into line politicians, who are considered untrustworthy and self-interested wealth seekers, when
necessary.
For a long time a centrally planned economy was applied and it provided the state a fundamental role in the distribution of wealth and
resources. This role gave rise to societal and political consequences. Riches did not come from the market, but rather from good
relations with the governing elite, which led to good fortune. Yet these irregular economic dialogues did not let social classes emerge
naturally. Statist policies hindered entrepreneurship and risk taking. Even today, it is hardly impossible to be rich without leaning on
the state.
All in all, Turkey's political culture did not generate self-confident, responsive, entrepreneurial, innovative, participatory, critical,
tolerant and democratic individuals. Aware that it can take centuries to change this political culture, we must strive to change these
cultural codes through promoting civil society initiatives, opening alternative news channels and improving new educational
philosophy.