Prep school (dershane) resistance, autocracy and democracy

İhsan Bal

In his speech in Muğla Prime Minister Erdogan carefully and delicately stressed that Turkey’s Grand National Assembly was the authority in which all decisions were made. In order to strengthen this emphasis, he said "this is not a country ruled not by an autocratic regime, it is a country ruled by democracy." Indeed, this is true.

Well, in that case whereto on the line between democracy and autocracy does the dershane (prep school) resistance that has defined recent weeks correspond? First, it would be useful to recall the most universal definitions of the concepts.

Autocracy is when all political authority is concentrated in the hands of a single person. The main feature of autocratic regimes is that the government makes all the decisions on behalf of the people and imposes its own "good", "right", and "beautiful" on the people.

On the other hand, democracy means that the people decide what "good", "right", and "beautiful" is for themselves, come up with solutions to their problems, and the government eliminates obstacles—if any—to the implementation of these solutions. The most distinctive feature of a democratic regime is the use of representatives who convey these solutions to the government. For a while now entrepreneurs have been saying that closing the prep schools they opened with their own money is antithetical to free enterprise. At the same time, they state that they have made these investments in order to meet the demand for education in society, and that according to the Assembly’s laws they do legitimate and justifiable work.

This demand is evident, as the people have not called their children home from the prep schools. The prep schools have been working within the framework of the law to meet this demand.

So what’s the controversy?

The government says “I will close them”. Can it do so lawfully through its power in the Assembly? Yes. In democracies, however, it must be accepted that this “yes” has a cost. This is because while they make decisions, parliaments are acting on behalf of the nation they represent. That is to say, the citizen and society are the principal; the government, the proxy.

When we grasp this succinct and simple reasoning we also understand that so long as the prep school resistance doesn’t lead to crime and is not contaminated by violence—namely it stays within the boundaries of the law—it is one of the most legitimate, democratic rights and freedoms.

One of the basic functions of a participatory democracy is to produce all arguments that find government inclinations and actions to be wrong and unjust and then inform the public. For that reason, we can well interpret the prep school owners and employees—citizens voicing their own appeals to free enterprise to education rights—attempting to create public opinion as an effort to contribute to and influence the decision-making process of the government, its proxy.

Accordingly, instead of approaching the [Gulen] movement with various conspiracy theories, looking at it as a very basic and legitimate method to seek justice is both more reasonable and wiser. If governments and parliaments act on the behalf of people, then certainly there are things for people to say to their delegates.

To be sure, the place where these things are said the most powerfully is ballot box. Nonetheless, as President Abdullah Gül previously stated, democracy does not consist only of the ballot box.

In that sense, belittling attempts to seek rights within the legitimate boundaries of law or conferring different meanings to democracy is to miss the nature of democracy. The prep school resistance features sensible examples of societal struggles for rights, and in doing so it significantly contributes to the maturation and restoration of democracy in these lands. For that reason, it deserves to be perceived as a contribution to the internalization of democracy.

Published on Journal of Turkish Weekly, 04 December 2013, Wednesday