Güven Sak, PhD - [Archive]

Why are the people and the deputies of the parliament not alike? 13/03/2012 - Viewed 1895 times

Why were the people in Antalya able to discuss any issue around a roundtable, looking each other in the eye, when their deputies have been brawling in Ankara?

Last Sunday I was in Antalya, attending the seventh of the Citizens’ Meetings that the Constitution Platform has been organizing with the motto “Turkey Speaks.” The first meeting of the series was held in Ankara, as a pilot event. The Konya and Edirne meetings validated that the system worked. In Diyarbakir, we shifted up a gear. The Izmir meeting was just amazing. On 8 March 8, we held a meeting with the participation of women, in Ankara. The last meeting of the series was held in Antalya. There, I saw it with my own eyes: The people discussed any issue you can think of maturely, even if they were irritated. This was also the case at the other provincial meetings. Meanwhile, however, members of the parliament were jumping down each other’s throat. Since the beginning of the provincial constitution meetings, I have been witnessing that the people are one step ahead of their MPs when it comes to democratic maturity and patience. In Antalya, the people were able to discuss any issue around a roundtable, looking each other in the eye, whereas their deputies have been brawling in Ankara. How is this possible? Let me tell you what I think.

When I first visited the US years ago, the clearest difference I realized was the people. Everyone had an opinion and they were able to tell each other their opinions easily, anywhere. Everyone, from a lecturer to a sanitation worker.  Thanks to the citizens’ meetings since the beginning of this year, I have been seeing the same type of individuals in meeting halls throughout Turkey. Citizens’ Meetings randomly invite people from different sections of society to discuss constitutional issues. In one of the provincial meetings, one of the participants came to me and said, “It’s the first time a thing like this happened in our city.” Right after his first experience at a societal negotiation meeting, he did not know what to call it. For him, it was a “thing.” This is the first point I want to stress concerning the insight of the people.

Now the second one: Lately, constitution meetings have been carried out all around Turkey. Here is what I see: People have been discussing among themselves what the new constitution should be like. But the new constitution must be discussed by people who are different than each other. If a constitution is a social contract binding all, no one should be excluded. Is it possible for people who are quite different from each other to gather around a table and discuss each and every issue relevant to the constitutional agenda? Judging by my experience during the citizens’ meetings, I say yes. It definitely is possible given that each of the meetings lasted around nine hours. The day before, in Antalya, a retired police chief had said, “I’m here not for myself, but for my grandchildren.” The people are always able not to compare oranges with apples. They are able to identify what is important and what is not. This is the second point about the insight of the people.

Third is that, when discussing issues on which they have completely opposite opinions, people have been able to continue sitting at the same table. I think it is a healing and purifying process that everyone was able to sit with someone from the opposing side and tell his or her opinions about him or her. I have always been of the belief that the constitutional debate is more important than the constitution itself. It was the will, courage and commitment of the people that made face-to-face discussion possible during citizens’ meetings. These discussions will be the key to the search for a common mind in the constitution-making process. Areas of consensus and issues of debate differentiate automatically. This is the third point about the insight of the people. So, if the people are this insightful, why are their deputies in parliament not? Why the people think rationally but their deputies chose to fight? The reason is quite simple: When we asked during the citizens’ meetings “Do you think it is necessary to strengthen the level of representation between electors and deputies?” 95 percent of participants, from different cities and ideologies, responded “yes.” This implies broad ground for consensus. The people ask for deputies who think like them and who will hear their voices.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 13.03.2012