Loyalty over ability
We often come across the bashing of ministers in social media nowadays, especially after the June 23 elections. Given the difficulty and necessity of it, there seems to be no way that the President can ignore or postpone the issue.
Moreover, there is no room for postponing it, because it’s a very important problem. The President, who attaches great importance to public opinion research and has been doing it so successfully, effectively and silently for years, will see that if he conducts a survey on his cabinet and ministers name by name, most are unpopular.
Obviously Turkey has a funda
mental “bureaucracy” problem, and “bureaucrats” lie at the heart of it. The fact is that there is a “bureaucratic oligarchy” and expressing it as a problem loudly is very important. This is because the current government and its leader, the President, have been in power for 17 years, as much as 25 years in most local governments. Therefore, they are in the position to know the functioning, dilemmas, and the solutions of the bureaucracy.
Moreover, under the current system, the President alone is in charge of everything. In particular, the President is able to settle everything quickly with a two-line Presidential decision or decree. With the majority in parliament, the legislative process, in which everything is put into a bag law (and therefore turned into a soup), there is also no room for excuses.
Therefore, in the face of these facts, it is now necessary to carefully evaluate the discourse of a bureaucratic oligarchy. It is clear that the recent decisions, especially in the economic bureaucracy, will accelerate problems instead of solving them.
For example: It is impossible to be hopeful after the Central Bank governor - who normally is appointed by a specific law and should be independent - was discharged with a two-line Presidential decree. Likewise, it is naïve to expect anything from the appointment of old politicians and bureaucrats to the boards of public banks for the purpose influencing these institutions.
We hear that there is chaos in public banks; nearly 20 general managers or executives in the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey have expressed increased anxiety.
If institutions rely on capable people, then we should worry about general managers of any institution, and lately deputy ministers, being dismissed quietly and replaced by other names. These actions belie a darker reality: Instead of building solutions on scientific and holistic policies and systems, the remedy is looked for among junior, surrogate and inexperienced people.