Systems in which all parties can remain in their own space are suitable for innovation.

There are many signs. If you focus on the signs instead of empty talk, you will see that Turkey has been stealthily returning to the statism of the 1930s. We argue that we are supporting the rule of the private sector, but the practices do not say so. The statism of the 1930s had a meaning in the 1930s. Then, there was no private space. This new form of statism pioneered by the current government, on the other hand, aims directly at liquidating the private space that is beyond of the radius of the state. This is what the signs imply. Today let me tell you what these signs are and assess one among these, the role of the state in the innovation process. I will let you decide.

Putting the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA) under state control, completely neglecting the autonomy of the institution, implies an aspiration for the statism of the 1930s. Undervaluing the autonomy of the Scientific and Technologic Research Council of Turkey signals the statism of the 1930s. Ceasing the autonomy of the Istanbul Stock Exchange (İMKB) signals the trust in the virtues of 1930s statism. “The operation for clearing the private sector from construction sites” initiated by the Mass Housing Administration has already pointed at the 1930s statism model. The anti-private sector terrorist activities of the Ministry of Health are ongoing. Turkey has entered a new phase in which the accomplishments against the state are being reversed. Are you aware of this? It is quite tragic to adopt the statism of the 1930s in practice while even the Republican People’s Party has let it go.

I cannot address all of the above today, but let me make an assessment about TÜBA. It appears that concerning TÜBA, the intervention of the 1930s approach has been made to assist the innovation process. However, taking steps in line with the statism approach of the 1930s can achieve nothing but break the peace. Without peace, there will be no innovation. Let me tell you why. The renewal of a system is of importance. It facilitates technological breakthroughs. It is one of the principal ways to improve the value added of the economy in the medium term. Innovativeness means designing an ecosystem. If you cannot organize the complex web of interest-oriented relationships between different actors that have diverse skills and motivations properly, you cannot create an environment suitable for innovation. From this perspective, innovation ecosystem requires designing a complex governance system. I think that the remarks of Viviana Zelizer are refreshing. From this standpoint, the innovation ecosystem is a state of social balance among politics, the world of science, the public sector and the business world. The essence of this balance is that everyone deals with his own business. What matters for scientists is to solve problems and to gain recognition for their work. Generating money is a positive externality for scientists. They do not understand business activities. What matters for public officials is to serve their country. The reason of the state is not to earn money. It should not be, at least. For a politician, what is of importance is to ensure sustainable development and to improve the welfare of society so as to earn as many votes as possible for electoral victory. Otherwise, the government will be overthrown. Earning money should not be the primary job of a politician. For business owners, what matters is to earn the highest profit possible. This is the primary objective of any actor operating in the market. In this picture, the key issue is that no one intervenes in the other’s job. This is what social balance implies. Politicians should intervene neither in science, nor in business. The statism of the 1930s, on the other hand, implies intervening in anything and everything. The current case with TÜBA and the İMKB reflects such an approach. In that case, no actor can sufficiently fulfill his duty and the balance will be broken. If you say, “I will intervene in the process from the start so as to ensure the balance.” and do so, this becomes a circle. Everyone intervenes in everyone else’s space. Systems in which all parties can remain in their own space are suitable for innovation. If all parties interfere in other’s jobs due to historical tradition or to contemporary political conflicts and if the climate of cooperation cannot be maintained, however, the complex balance will disappear. If so, the innovative climate needed to accomplish high value added production cannot be ensured or maintained. This means wasting the energy of society. The inclination towards the statism of the 1930s is not a good sign. We are only one step behind the “If communism is what this country needs, it is we who will bring it” authoritarianism.

I have spoken and saved my soul.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 08.11.2011