Deliberative democracy is the best prescription for all types of discontent. Turkey needs further dialogue and more tools for deliberative democracy.

Do you remember that photo from the groundbreaking ceremony for the third bridge over the Bosporus, the one that depicts the moment of groundbreaking? I recalled that one while I was trying to make sense of the protests that have started in Gezi Park, Istanbul, and have diffused throughout Turkey. Do you recall the photo? It depicted a significant crowd. It had the President, Parliament Speaker, Prime Minister and several ministers together with their spouses. Did you notice who was missing? Kadir Topbaş, the Metropolitan Municipality Mayor of Istanbul. Among all those people, he could not find a place for himself. At the most important gathering involving a huge investment in Istanbul, the top elected official of the city was not there.

He wasn’t at the ceremony for an investment that is to affect the life quality of Istanbulites directly. I think the process that led to the Gezi Park protests must be assessed from this perspective. If this predicament is to give way to a positive agenda and teach us important lessons, we should emphasize that Turkey needs a new constitution that strengthens local administrations. A decentralization program is an urgent necessity.

A world city such as Istanbul should be governed directly from and by Istanbul. As should Izmir and Diyarbakir. The necessity is the same for all. Cities no longer should be governed by the center. Why? Quite simple: by nature, local governors are and will be always more sensitive to the demands of fellow townsmen. Examples from other countries suggest that. On the first day of the demonstrations, Kadir Topbaş, about the Gezi Park project, said “We could have informed the public better on the project.” I think this was critical. But let me stress that he did not have the chance, and more importantly, the channels. Let’s think: the total budget of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) is around 6 billion liras, compared to New York City Government’s (NYCG) 100 billion liras. The respective populations of the two cities are 13.5 million and 8.5 million. The NYCG organizes education and police services, but it collects the city’s tax directly. Are there any other tools that the IMM is lacking? Yes. The NYCG has the authority to submit directly to public referendum any issue that might directly affect the lives of the residents. In addition, a group of residents can join together to call for a referendum on decisions that affect their lives. This way, people dissatisfied with their lives can participate in the construction of a positive agenda instead of rioting.

Deliberative democracy is the best prescription for all types of discontent. Turkey needs more of that; further dialogue and more tools for deliberative democracy. I learned three lessons during the citizen’s assembly meetings (SAMs) for the new constitution: first, people are capable of discussing each and every issue calmly and openly. Second, they are glad to go to the ballot box. Third, they like to have the chance to raise their ideas via referendums in between the election times. In fact, they particularly want to bring an issue to the agenda via petitions. During the SAMs, the right to public rejection of decisions via referendum and the right to publicly ask for a referendum on certain issues were the most frequent demands for the new constitution. I am aware that such project might be expensive and difficult to carry out at the national level, but I think having more local referendums is an important tool to better communicate projects and actions.

We are witnessing what happens otherwise.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 04.06.2013