Yesterday, the core problem was the central government’s tutelage over the local. I’m afraid tomorrow’s problem will be tutelage of the rural over the urban.

The agenda of debate in Turkey is not actually Turkey’s agenda. Abortion, caesarean section, and most recently the debate on beer drinking at universities are defective agenda items. They are defective because they don’t relate to Turkey’s future or enrichment. From this perspective, Turkey’s current agenda is sort of a distraction. You know, in the times of the street fairs in the past, some thieves used to distract people by pointing at the acrobats to steal their purses. Turkey’s current agenda is just like that. I believe that the Turkey that fails to govern its cities and change their organization and operation structure cannot become a high-income country. Neither can it develop the organization capacity necessary to overcome the middle-income trap.

So, with whom should we be angry about this? Whose ancestors should we think of when we are stuck in traffic? If you ask me, the reason for the mess we are living in is the administrative organization structure of Turkey. We must first acknowledge this and then find out who prefers not to or fails to change the structure. Let me share some observations. It is a mistake that 60 percent of the public investments in Istanbul are decided by the central government. Istanbul cannot be shaped by the center. It is neither democratic, nor functional. People who have ideas about a city must govern that city. Now, think about it: you are a local administrator in Istanbul, dedicated to improving the city’s competitiveness and enriching its residents. You have visited Ankara and convinced the bureaucrats about the right investments. Your efforts are fruitful and the incomes of Istanbul’s residents have increased while tax revenue from the city also has been enhanced. What is the profit of the local administrator? He will have to go back to Ankara to tell for which investments the tax revenue can best be used. Of course, if he is not assigned to another city or district. Moreover, that he once convinced the central government does not necessarily mean that he will succeed the second time, too.

Third, if Istanbul must be governed by and in Istanbul, the Provincial Council structure is incompatible. We should not entrust our cities to the countrymen. Do you know how provincial councils are formed and what their duties are? At each local election, we cast a vote for provincial councils, but we don’t really know the purpose. For a long time all I knew about provincial councils were Süleyman Demirel’s statements about them, reading “in order to see the political preferences of our people, we have to check the provincial council election results. There people reveal their genuine desires.” Now I learn that provincial councils are in fact important agencies. The studies by the TEPAV governance team were highly enlightening to me. The provincial council is the decision-making body of the special provincial administration.

Here, two points may be underscored: The first is that the special provincial administrations are responsible for ensuring cohesion and coordination between public agencies at the provincial level. Second, the central agencies that provide services at the local level are handing over certain authorities to the special provincial administration one after another. Hence, it appears, there is an implicit idea to incorporate the center’s authorities in the local administration within the body of special provincial administrations. Localization is in a way carried out through the special provincial administrations.

But how are these administrations formed? Let me cite the Ankara example. When selecting the members of special provincial administrations, the 67,000 people living in the district of Cankaya elect one representative compared to the 1,500 people living in the district of Evren. In the district of Güdül, one member represents 5,000 people. The weight of rural areas is especially high. This system entrusts urban administration to villagers, whereas the share of the rural population has decreased from 70 percent to 25 percent.

Yesterday, the core problem was the central government’s tutelage over the local. I’m afraid tomorrow’s problem will be tutelage of the rural over the urban. Cities governed by people who are unaware of the realities of urban life deliver nothing but a bunch of high-income construction projects. Those who cannot ponder their issues in advance cannot get out of trouble. And if they cannot get out of trouble, they cannot overcome the middle-income trap. Organizational capacity is the precondition for jumping from middle to high income.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 31.07.2012