If Iran becomes normalized, the importance of Turkey in the eyes of its western allies diminishes.

Turkey has been snowed in under its own troubles for the last twenty days. That’s not good if you ask me. Not that it’s disreputable to tourists visiting Turkey. It’s a disgrace for the people of Turkey per se. We first insisted on redeveloping the only green space in Taksim as a construction site. Upon the strong reaction, we have withdrawn the project. We are unable to find a middle way or be moderate as we are supposed to. Cities love middle ways.

Meanwhile, the Iranians voted to elect their new president. The most moderate candidate that was allowed to run  in the election won. During his campaign, Hassan Rouhani had said that the represented the moderate against the extremists. After eight years of extremism in management, Iran voted for the moderates. While I was watching the hustle in Kazlıçeşme on the one hand and in Taksim on the other, the question popped in my mind: What would happen to Turkey if Iran moved toward normalization?  Have you thought about it? Let me tell you: the importance of Turkey in the eyes of its western allies would diminish. No one wants to go to a mediator if he has the chance to sit at the table directly with the relevant party. More correctly, if so, Turkey would remain as it is, but its project to become a regional power would come to an end. Turkey, deepening democratization and accelerating the Europeanization process, continues to be an inspiration for the countries of its region. I have derived three lessons from the latest developments.

The first is that decentralization is important. Local issues should be discussed and resolved at the local level. The incident in Istanbul must have taught us that decentralization is relevant for not only Diyabakir but also Istanbul, Manisa, and all cities. At this time when debates about the new constitution are on the agenda it is of key importance to delegate certain central authorities to local governments. What we should be discussing is the limits of the delegation. Everyone should keep in mind that the success of the peace-building process depends heavily on the decentralization of decision-making processes. This is the first lesson.

Here is the second: Turkey has to move from the representative democracy that it has successfully internalized since its introduction in 1950 to participatory democracy. That’s the call of the new urban middle-class. Prime Minister Erdoğan’s decision to hold a referendum on the Gezi Park construction project regardless of the court ruling was very correct. The local referendum idea must be diversified with options such as petitioning to call for a referendum on disapproved or disliked council decisions. The new constitution must allow the use of such democratic participations instruments. This second lesson is relevant to the constitution debate.

The third one is that the reaction we saw in Turkey is not unique to Turkey. In today’s world, the execution of power, even at its peak, is restrained at the highest degree. Governing a country having won 50 percent of the votes is not the same as it used to be. As the technological change has strengthened the individual, it is a must to diversify the tools of participatory democracy it order to manage – not well or badly, but just to manage – any country, company, foundation, or any other hierarchical organization. Political power is no longer the same. It’s different in all locations and dimensions. If you are interested, I recommend you read Moises Naim’s The End of Power. Please remember that today’s protestors are from the generation that learned how to use an iPad right after they learned how to read. The one after that learned how to use an iPad even before learning how to read. Thing are now harder for all types of power apparatus, starting with the family.

If Iran is going to become normalized, Turkey should become Europeanized as rapidly. I’ve spoken and saved my soul.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 18.06.2013