The risk argued by State Minister Ali Babacan made me nearly jump out of my skin.

On Tuesday, Honorable Minister Ali Babacan held an assessment meeting with the columnists writing on the economy. Such meetings are being held for a long time and if I am not wrong, I have participated in all except one. The meetings are also attended by senior officials from the Treasury and the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey (CBRT). I used to attend these meetings as an official at the CBRT. I now participate in such meetings as a columnist. But this is not the only thing that has changed; the venue is also different now. Meetings were moved first from Beykoz to Dolmabahce, and than to Florya.

The agenda of the last meeting was the medium term program announced in September. At the beginning of the meeting Mr. Babacan delivered a presentation. The point about the presentation that attracted my attention was his views about the future risks. Potential external risks go as such:
Being ruled by week political powers makes it harder for some countries to take decisions. For instance, during the global crisis, monetary expansion was pursued and public budgets expanded at a substantial level. This disruption should first be ceased and then reversed. Nonetheless, timing is a matter of concern for everyone. A wrong step can risk global growth again. So there is an uncertainty in this respect, which naturally poses a risk for Turkey as well. 

These are risks recognized by all of us. But the risk which struck my attention the most, more honestly the risk that nearly made me jump out of my skin, was the one Mr. Babacan proposed to be the most critical one: He identifies that structural reforms were laggard in the recent period. But he argues that the reason is not the lack of sufficient preparation required for the reforms. On the contrary, he states that draft laws for some of the attempted reforms are ready. He claims that the reforms are not yet launched due to the inertia of the parliamentary mechanisms, more correctly the opposition parties' intentional efforts to create inertia in parliamentary mechanisms. In this respect, Mr. Babacan considers the current working order as the biggest impediment to structural reforms.

In the meeting I clearly expressed that I disagree with him in this view. There are several reasons for this: First, if it is conciliation that is needed - and indeed it should be - then conciliation should be sought in areas other than the economy, as well. To put it more clearly, if you are reluctant to reconcile in other fields, you most likely do not have the right to complain that reconciliation could not be restored in the field of economy. 

Second, between 2002 and 2004, during the period of the same working order, a number of reforms were made. As also underlined by Mr. Babacan, concrete steps were taken in the context of European Union (EU) accession. If it could be made then, it can also be made now.

Third, in connection with the previous reasons, I guess it would not be only the opposition responsible for the failure to initiate reforms. In fact, it is not the opposition that is fundamentally responsible for his failure.

I have recently mentioned that the growth targets the medium term program states for the 2011-2013 period are not assertive enough to carry Turkey to the first league. Of course it would not work if a more assertive target was just written and not sought, either. What matters is what you do and how you do it. But these characteristics are not present in the program.

And another point: In democracies, presence of different control mechanisms are of critical importance. We should have these, so that we feel the urge to seek for conciliation. I believe democracy does not only mean majority of votes.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 11.11.2010