Mehmet Özay 23.06.2018
Ahead of the presidential and parliamentary elections to be held in Turkey on June 24, the Turkish branch of a global media outlet reported on a survey conducted by a public opinion research company.
The voter survey highlighted in this article is remarkable both in terms of the questions and, of course, the answers. However, it is likely that similar media outlets, or even the majority of them, have commissioned similar research companies or conducted their own studies to determine voter attitudes in the same vein.
The point I want to draw attention to here is about the moral stance of the electorate. Basically, it is questionable whether this moral stance exists or not, and if it does, to what extent it is authentic and genuine, and to what extent it is shaped by manipulations.
The article I drew attention to in the introduction draws attention to the methodological difference by pointing out that this is the first time that the universe on the evolution of the Turkish electorate is based on a small settlement unit. This may have its own reasons. However, since the representativeness of this sample in Turkey is not directly related to the main issue we want to focus on here, there is no need to say much about it.
In this research sample, it is possible to get some insights into the political world of the country. The study draws attention to the possibility of a decline in voters' support for the current president and the dominant political structure in the face of key issues such as the economy and terrorism.
Whether the sociology of Turkey has produced a voter profile that corresponds to the arena of ordinary elections is a fundamental issue that needs to be questioned. When you try to adapt the context of 'under normal conditions', which is emphasized as an indispensable condition for scientific activity in science classes throughout our primary and secondary education, to the world of politics and elections, it is possible to see that abnormal conditions are actually more determinative.
The fact that the questions put in front of the subject electorate are, of course, geared towards the desired answers is a factor that can be guessed by those who know something about research techniques. Therefore, when you approach the electorate with questions such as economy and terrorism, you conceal the reality that Turkey is not free from these questions and problems. On top of that, you witness an approach that makes it seem as if there is a dominant discourse that wants to bring to the agenda of the Turkish electorate the idea that such 'abnormal conditions' do not exist in the region and in the countries that are said to be exemplary in various contexts.
I believe that this is the primary factor that should shape the voter's moral stance. With the means at their disposal and the crumbs of information and knowledge available to them, the electorate can be led to believe that the world of economics in the geography in which they live, or in the countries that are presented to them as examples, all of which are no doubt Western countries, is in a bright state, that they have crossed the threshold of economic development one by one and are subject to an economic life on a completely different scale.
Or, there is a stance that opens the door to an understanding that these developing or developed countries are subject to a social and political order independent of a phenomenon called terrorism, which has entered the daily lives of even elementary school children in one way or another. And whether there is a moral aspect to presenting the inseparability of this phenomenon of terrorism as a local and special problem of Turkey and perceiving it in this way requires reflection.
Another aspect of the voter profile that the aforementioned research institution and the global media have tried to construct through this research institution's study is the need of the current political dominant structure for a "coalition" situation or the approach that the door to success cannot be opened without a "coalition". Since 2003, this political movement, which has been the primary actor in the political life of the country, has been trying to draw an illusionary picture that it has no discourse towards the political, cultural and even religious differentiations of Turkish society and that it has no unity with these circles in the course it has followed until today within the period of its emergence and dynamic phases.
Turkey has not been structured as a 'mono' society; on the contrary, this society has always been characterized by different political, cultural and religious diversities, which have either been excluded by political parties and discourses from time to time or have been presented in the context of unity, even if they are not called open alliances. It must be said that this misleading mono-cultural approach to criticizing the current government's existence or its 'success' in the coming period has no moral aspect.
It should have been a necessary condition for a moral stance for the global media organ that commissioned the research and shaped the news to reveal that the fact that political movements in today's countries, from east to west, address multicultural, multi-religious, multi-political societies that cannot be free from the phenomenon of coalitions, exists as an essential and fundamental element in Turkey.
In this context, it is expected that the current political structure and the discourses put forward by its leader and his/her leadership team in the fields of economy, terrorism, etc., which are inevitable factors in determining the moral stance of the electorate, and their reflection on politics, and the political structures that call themselves the opposition in the face of the processes that find their counterpart in the law-making institutions of the country, will take a moral stance on what and how they can put forward in these and similar fields. The fact that global and national media institutions are instrumental in bringing this moral situation to the agenda as a priority stands out as a requirement of media ethics.
A movement that openly declares that it has confined itself to geographical and cultural boundaries within the so-called opposition parties should adopt a moral stance before the demands for democratic structuring and life practices that it seems to be trying to achieve, and should look at its own social background and ask the question of what kind of a chain of democratic demands can emerge from this structuring, which has the characteristics of a feudal society.
It gives the impression of a rainbow of ideologies, with feminist representation within this political formation; with different factions within the leftist ideology, from the most fascist to the most liberal; with individuals and groups who identify themselves as Muslim in terms of faith; with independent and different social elements such as parties and social circles that today support the founding ideology of the country. As one of the most obvious elements of politics, the question of which demands and which methods and what kind of solutions are to be pursued under this rainbow of ideologies becomes ambiguous. Or this ambiguity corresponds to a situation that is produced on purpose.
This political movement, recognizing that it emerged in a geography where feudal relations are woven into social relations to the fullest extent, where women are not only left behind in this social structure, but where this emerges as a conscious cultural construction, and where, let's say, an egalitarian political approach is hardly encountered in daily social practices, is expected to put forward a moral practice aimed at repairing these and similar fractures. Above all, this political movement must undoubtedly confront the question of how it positions itself in the face of the presence of international actors beyond the country's borders and in the wider Middle East geography and global conflict zones.
I do not intend to prolong this article. However, finally, there is one factor that the global media and research companies in the country do not seem to take into account, but which is important not only for Turkish politics but also for the structuring of global politics, and that is the political visibility of the leader of the current political structure in various parts of the world.
The approach to Turkish politics of the group we call the friends of Turkey, which we have brought to the agenda in some of our previous articles, is emerging to an extent that transcends the borders of nation-states. This formation, which is witnessed and observed in various countries, should be evaluated with its qualitative elements rather than its quantitative context. It is worth emphasizing that this international situation is of a nature that we believe will be decisive in the moral stance of Turkish voters.
While global media organs observe the political life of the country and research institutions conduct studies on voter orientation, it is perhaps inherent and part of the nature of these organs and institutions that they come up with classical manipulative approaches. In this sense, it may not be possible to evaluate this situation as a flaw, but to say that it corresponds to an unethical situation corresponds to another situation.
There is a clear difference between presenting and pushing the political and social conditions of the country as a closed structure and the efforts of the political structure that has been governing the country for some time to carry itself and the country beyond its borders. The extent to which this is perceived and emphasized by the general electorate, and in particular by the voters who have so far clearly demonstrated their membership to this political movement with their votes, is a crucial issue. At this point, the question of what kind of moral stance the electorate will take in this political, social and global environment is important.
English and Indonesian versions translated with DeepL AI
