14,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: tredition
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
How does the ideal state look like? It reaches beyond the considerations of power and wealth. More than that, it creates a society in which every citizen can strive to realise her full potential. The ideal state is a devletist state! In this treatise, a novel approach to politics is established. Devlet is not a whiny critique of past and contemporary systems but a constructive and innovative approach to rethink politics and society. Therefore, it is a must-read for everyone. For politicians, Devlet can be read as a guide. For political scientists, Devlet serves as a gate to new ways of political thinking. For the layman, Devlet is a call to action.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 258
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
DEVLET
Emre Şentürk
İstanbul, 2021
© 2022 Emre Şentürk
Publisher label: Essydo Magazine
ISBN E-Book: 978-3-347-73333-6
Printing and distribution on behalf of the author:
tredition GmbH, Halenreie 40-44, 22359 Hamburg, Germany
The work, including its parts, is protected by copyright. The author is responsible for the contents. Any exploitation is prohibited without his approval. Publication and distribution are carried out on behalf of of the author, to be reached at: tredition GmbH, department “Imprint service”, Halenreie 40-44, 22359 Hamburg, Germany.
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Prologue
Chapter I
Philosophical Foundations
Chapter II
The Purpose of States
Chapter III
About the Centrality of Culture
Chapter IV
About the Use of Devletism
Chapter V
About Political Parties
Chapter VI
The Devletist Voting System
Chapter VII
About Governance
Chapter VIII
Electing Local, Provincial and Central Government Officials
Chapter IX
The Devletist Parliament
Chapter X
From Principles to Policymaking
Chapter XI
About Devletism and the Politics of Left and Right
Chapter XII
Political Analysis
Chapter XIII
Culture as the Third Pillar of Political Analysis
Chapter XIV
About the Cultural Constitution and its Importance
Chapter XV
Introduction to the Six Policy Areas
Chapter XVI
About the Centrality of Education within Devletism
Chapter XVII
The Education System under Devletism
Chapter XVIII
The Devletist Economy
Chapter XIX
Principles and Policies in the Devletist Economy and Finance
Chapter XX
Public Income and Expenditure
Chapter XXI
International Relations in a Devletist World
Chapter XXII
About the Environment as a Policy Field
Chapter XXIII
Urban Planning
Chapter XXIV
The Devletist Welfare State
Chapter XXV
The Judiciary
Chapter XXVI
Epilogue
Devlet
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Prologue
Chapter XXVI
Devlet
Cover
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
Prologue
Mankind’s most important questions centre around the organisation of our lives within societies. Although countless scholars, philosophers and politicians have invested vast amounts of energy and time in making sense of the way of our societal organisation, we seem to have made very little progress in relation to the century-old efforts that we have put into advancing as a species. Of course, there are underlying agendas and interests – among many other factors – that hinder effective and efficient progress. Moreover, it might well be a misconception on my part to think that we have the necessary knowledge to transform our societies in a way that is aligned with the purpose of life. However, I defend that our societies function far below their true potential – not because we do not want to, but because the structures simply guide us into this inefficiency. The main problem is that we are unaware of what we are doing on this planet and why we do it. At the very best, our current goals are limited in their usefulness and reaching those goals will lead us to a dead end if we continue to move in the direction of said goals. This holds true for our personal lives, the societies we live in and the politics that guides our societies.
I believe that the philosophical background of much of the work produced until today is insufficient to understand a state’s purpose and hence, its role. It is needless to say that all philosophical assumptions limit the production of intellectual work; even having no assumptions is a limiting attitude in its own way. We can compare this to a journey to an unfamiliar place. Having a map is useful to reach the destination, but the map would be useless if it depicts a different country. However, not having a map does not increase our chances of reaching the destination, either. To get where we want to be, we must first be sure that we have the right tools to get there. But before that, it is necessary to identify our destination. Politics should be functioning in the same way. There should be clarity about the purpose of our existence and then what is needed to get there. Politics is the institutional vehicle that helps us fulfil this purpose by means of organising societal conduct.
This might be easy in theory, but in terms of practicability, there are significant obstacles grounded in the complexity of our societies as well as in the misconception of what political systems should do for them. In this work, I propose a new state theory which reaches beyond the limitations of our current political understanding. The theory is named ‘Devletism’, originating from the Turkish word for state. I define it as:
A form of societal organisation that aims for joint and
continuous progression through the advancement
of genuine knowledge.
Beginning with the philosophical underpinnings of this new school of state theory, I aim to rectify our understanding of a political system’s purpose that naturally stems from our purpose as individual human beings.
During the process of writing this treatise, some of the people I have talked to have described the ideas in this work as a utopia. I would not go that far. In essence, this work proposes just a minor readjustment of focus. While I reject previous philosophical assumptions about our individual purpose in life – and with them the perception of the purpose of political systems – I would not have been able to develop the devletist idea without the works of past great minds. The devletist idea is, hence, just a logical continuation of past achievements, which are limited in providing future guidance from this point onwards due to the different societal circumstances of our time. A time might come when Devletism also becomes insufficient to provide guidance to individuals, societies and states. However, it can serve as an important building block for the workings of future scholars, politicians, philosophers and any other person who aims to improve our existence on this planet and maybe even on other planets. The purpose of this work is to establish a state philosophy capable of elevating our societies to a higher standard of living and, most importantly, increasing the quality of life without, paradoxically, these material goals constituting the ends of policy actions. This will be picked up later in greater detail.
On a more personal note, I would like to thank all the valuable people in my life for the opportunity to learn from them. I would like to express my gratitude for all the support, discussions and motivation I received from those who believed in me and the value of my work. Moreover, I would also like to express my deepest love and admiration to all political scientists who continuously add to the advancement of our beautiful field of science. And to the great political minds and hands of the past, who have shaped what we call history.
Chapter I
Philosophical Foundations
A thought is like a plant. Just like a plant needs soil and water to exist, a thought needs a philosophical foundation and constant contact with the world to grow. If it happens that this thought can be entertained throughout a variety of different settings in our reality, it strengthens its right to exist. The more a thought can survive tests against real world scenarios, the more authoritative the core premises of this thought. This also means that the soil from which this thought arises, the philosophical foundation, must be an equally sustainable system. Similarly, when a thought or belief system (philosophical foundation) successfully tests against different settings in the real world constantly, it can be thought to encompass great portions of what we call the truth. Now, the truth is a particularly difficult concept and, as such, subject to much debate. Some claim that the truth is not absolute but relative or subjective. Viewing the truth as something flexible or subjective is a philosophical foundation in itself. Thoughts that are born out of this view are likely to produce meaningful results only in the light of this view that the truth is subjective. It makes it difficult to compare this ontology to other philosophical foundations with different ontological assumptions. Nonetheless, there needs to be a discussion on the nature of the truth. Here, it is defended that there is an objective truth. This view is not new.1 However, many argue that this objective truth cannot be perceived in its natural form since people view the world in different ways. Although the latter is undeniably true, it does not conflict with the notion that there is an objective truth. We could, for example, say that the fact that people view the world differently is an integral part of the true reality. Or we could argue that the different perspectives arise from a lacking awareness of the concept of objective truth. Both ideas are compatible with the assumption that there is a universal objective truth. Such a truth is not affected by the different beliefs people hold on what is true or not, while the objective truth could be one that has a place for those different beliefs on the truth.
On the other hand, arguing that there is no such objective truth but only many different true individual realities creates a direct conflict between the two ontological views as it does not allow both to coexist. This is because the relative approach treats each subjectively constructed reality as a fully independent entity in its own right, ascribing a validity to each and every perceived reality that needs to be accepted. On this ground, adopting the idea that there is an objective truth would infringe the validity of the subjective truths. Another shortcoming of this thinking is an implicit dependency on the truth. What happens to this subjective truth without human beings? It is hard to argue that truth as a concept ceases to be without the existence of humans or other consciously reflecting organisms. It follows that humans can hold different views on the world but cannot claim that those views and beliefs are true if they are not representative of the objective truth. This finding mainly illustrates the existence of the concepts of “right” and “wrong”, which has significant implications for the judiciary of the devletist state.
Again, the absolute approach, too, allows those differently perceived realities to exist. They are situated hierarchically under the overarching umbrella of the universal truth. Such an approach does not conflict with the notion that there are different perceptions of the world; there can be a multitude of different perceived realities without changing the properties of the objective truth. It also does not reduce the validity of subjective perceptions but subordinates them to the objective truth. Hence, this encompassing view that there is, indeed, an objective truth is more powerful than the opposing ontological assumption of the subjective truth.
Next, some could argue that even if there is such an objective truth, it would not be possible for us to fully reveal it. However, we as human beings can technically perceive and even understand this objective truth, so I claim. Our species might not be able to do so today, but in countless millennia in the future. This does not make current human efforts to advance obsolete since these are necessary steps to moving closer to understanding the objective truth. I go even further by saying that we ought to understand this objective truth. Reaching this understanding of the objective truth of the universe is the sole purpose of every organism’s existence. We shall shortly see why.
In search for the answer to the question as to why this is the ultimate purpose of our, and every other species’, existence, we can use hypothetical thought experiments to single out this question’s answer from a wide array of philosophical views on this question.2 We could imagine that there is only one human being left on this planet. Said human knows she is the only human and there will not be another human being while she exists. What would be a meaningful driving factor of her behaviour? Next to sustaining her life by searching for water and food, her lonely existence must also consist of activities that require her to use the extended consciousness that humans possess – in comparison towards plants and animals, which they do not have yet. Without social contacts, the factors of love and friendship are useless in providing answers to what would influence her behaviour. The only exception might be seeking closeness to animals and spending time with them, but communication and sharing of experiences would be limited and, thus, not fulfilling. Seeking enjoyment in visiting beautiful places or engaging in thrilling activities are equally weak explanations of what would drive behaviour here because these activities will, at some point, lose their positive effect on the psyche of our last human being. For one, they will become repetitive and purposeless, but there is also nobody to share those experiences with. The only activity that can be continuously exercised without seizing to be interesting is to gain knowledge and, hence, move closer to an understanding of the objective truth. With or without other humans, the essence of knowledge production remains the same. It does not gain more importance within a society than it does without one. The accumulation of knowledge is independent and inexhaustible because knowledge itself exists independently. No organism is bound to another organism to explore the truth. Having support from others can surely add to the efficiency of the process, but it does not constitute a necessity. Therefore, knowledge is unconditionally independent. If we assume that there is, indeed, a purpose for our existence, then it must be something that exists independently and is not tied to the condition that there are other organisms that would make the existence of other purposes, such as love and friendship, possible. Every human action, except for one, depends on the existence of, or interaction with, other human beings. Either we need them to engage in the action in the first place, or they are necessary for the action to become meaningful. The only action that does not require such a constellation is knowledge production. Since knowledge production is the only human action that exists independently, it must be the sole purpose of our existence.
In the context of politics, we can think about similar scenarios. Every political system, to my knowledge, was either concerned with gaining more power – diplomatically, economically or militarily, or all three of them – or with increasing the material comfort of its society. In the case of power, let us think about a nation that was able to conquer the entire world. What would happen next? Surely, the goal then would be to maintain this status quo, but even when this situation can be maintained for centuries, a question as to what the driving factor of all subsequent acts would be would arise. Well, we could say that the ruler of the political system would then try to conquer other planets and galaxies and let us suppose that she was able to do so, too. What would happen next? What would be a meaningful motivation for her behaviour? There is nothing meaningful we could think of because the actions, until this point, were aimed at reaching this situation. But no agenda guides behaviour beyond that. It follows that power considerations are exhaustible and, therefore, cannot serve as a basis for understanding the purpose of states.
The same logic can be applied when considering the aspect of wealth. Let us imagine that the entire world has reached such a level of material comfort that every person lives in excessive luxury and has no material concerns. How would our behaviour change? What would drive subsequent behaviour in such an environment? Here again, reaching such a goal would lead the political system to a dead end because there is nothing more to achieve since everyone is already living in ultimate luxury. In both examples, reaching their goals would end their existence because they can, in theory, be reached. This is not the case with knowledge, which makes pursuing knowledge significantly more superior to pursuing power or wealth and comfort. A political system concerned with reaching a better understanding of the universe will never run into a dead end because there will always be questions that reach beyond the acquired pool of knowledge without becoming less relevant than the answers to the previous questions. Even what is believed to be known will often turn out to be untrue and require re-evaluation. It follows that the purpose of our existence must be centred around the search and development of knowledge and not around increasing power or wealth and comfort.
Why is this important? Let us return to our plant and its soil and water. This work establishes a new state theory – this is the thought and metaphorically the plant. To understand the nature of this thought, we need to see under which conditions it came into existence. The philosophical foundation in which this state theory is grounded is what was described above: the objective truth and our purpose of existence tied to it. The purpose of every organism’s existence is to work towards the understanding of the objective truth. Because this is the main assumption of why we exist, it is only natural that the proposed state system must be designed to realise this purpose of existence effectively and efficiently.3 Compared to previous assumptions that state purpose is built around increasing wealth and power, this view provides a meaningful normative framework for statecraft.
And what about the water? Just like a plant needs to be constantly fed with water, a thought needs to be fed with different situations from our reality. The analogy is a little bit off – I admit – since a plant consumes water to grow, but a thought is tested against different situations to prove that it can survive. Throughout this work, there will be arguments put forward, claiming that devletist systems can survive these situations and provide a better ground for our species to fulfil the purpose of our existence.
Now that the main guiding thought is clearly defined, the question, naturally, arises as to how we as a species can work towards this understanding of the objective truth. The answer to that is that we can achieve this through genuine knowledge production. Genuine knowledge production is not as straightforward as it might sound at first. Surely, scientific advances, which are probably among the first things that come to our minds, are part of it, but they are neither the sole nor the main factor that this concept is built on. Here, we need to understand other assumptions in the first place.
Every human has a special trait that lies at the deepest point of a person’s subconscious. Some might call it talent, purpose, gift or destiny. But they all describe roughly the same thing. This special trait develops in the very early stages of our biological existence and arguably even before that.4 What is important is that every person needs to find this very point in her subconscious, become familiar with it and internalise an awareness of it. It is a recurring theme throughout philosophy as great thinkers pointed out that one must, before anything else, know herself.5 Some followed that this is the key to success, while others linked it to love or other emotions and goals. Within the framework of the philosophy of this work, this special trait needs to be found because it enables one to work in this field with a significant unquantifiable advantage. For example, we can think about a doctor who simply has “a hand” for her profession, while others study this craft for decades and cannot match the level of knowledge and understanding that the talented doctor has. The reason is that the doctor has lived through a genuine and honest development process and happened to find this special trait at the deepest point of her character. By finding and developing this trait, one engages in genuine knowledge production as one works on fulfilling her purpose of existence. As mentioned earlier, this is not solely confined to the sciences but to virtually any area of our lives. Whether it is sports, music, art, literature or a certain craft, every person has this special trait, which can come in any form. Once found and developed, the outcome of the work will always be positive, though the path towards the outcome may be demanding. This is the point where genuine knowledge production happens. And where it happens, our species moves one step closer to understanding the objective truth that guides our universe because people with unquantifiable advantages seek to improve the state of art within their field. Society advances.
This is the thought system from which Devletism arose and in which devletist state systems will be embedded in. It follows that devletist systems need to be designed in ways that enable its people to discover themselves and also provide them with the opportunity to translate their potential into outcomes. The reason why devletist systems aim to do this is because there is the underlying premise that our species must move closer to the full understanding of the objective truth. By providing an environment that removes as many barriers as possible to finding and utilising every person’s special trait, everyone can add to societal progress in the most effective and efficient way, which is then accelerated through an accumulative effect at the societal level. Today, politics is unaware of this objective truth and, hence, cannot effectively work towards understanding it. How can you move towards something if its existence is unknown to you?6
Contemporary systems are based on approaches that lean heavily on power aspirations, personal and collective material desires and short-term thinking. Devletism challenges this order by designing politics in a way that makes whole societies work efficiently on societal progress by enabling personal development in the first place. Devletism’s biggest challenges are managing individual and aggregate level development, international influences and decadent societal tendencies. Many of the specific material structures of the political system, which will be described throughout the rest of this work, will inevitably collapse at a certain point in time as we progress as a species. Voting procedures, governance structures and institutions will lose relevance in a couple of centuries – as they should. These kinds of policy structures are useful to elevate societies from their current status quo to the next stage of development but are not meant to stay in place forever. However, the philosophical underpinnings should withstand time because the purpose of existence, which was described before, is a constant. So, it is necessary to understand that the workable measures in this work are tailored to this day and age. But once these structures start to hamper societal progression, the necessary changes must be implemented, again, based on the assumption that our species must collectively move towards a better understanding of the objective truth. The longer this philosophical assumption can survive societal and political change, the more authoritative it is going to become. Hopefully, the assumption that our existence is centred around understanding the functioning of our universe is going to survive many centuries and will guide our species through changes and hardships, while the ways in which we aim to achieve this will adapt to become more effective and efficient.
1 First structured thoughts about the nature of truth can be traced back to Socrates. In Plato´s Republic, in the dialogue between Thrasymachus and Socrates, it becomes clear that he refers to only one truth, even on a normative topic like justice.
2 This method is a more suitable approach to questions of this complexity. Though thought experiments seldom provide a fully sufficient answer, they can direct the cognitive efforts towards the potential answer, as it was the case with Schrödinger’s Cat.
3 It can, and also should, be followed that the design of all political systems, past or present, reflect the underlying assumptions by their founders and supporters about our purpose of existence.
4 Within the nature-nurture-debate, which the question about the special trait needs to be located in, I tend to side with the emergenic view.
5 Not only is this a recurring theme in Western philosophy (“Know thyself” being inscribed at the Temple of Delphi, according to the writer Pausanias, 10.24.1. Over the centuries, it was picked up in the teachings of Plato, René Descartes or Thomas Hobbes) but also in Islamic and East-Asian teachings. Islamic teachings of this notion have been influenced by Ibn Arabi and Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi who tied the idea of self-knowledge to the religion of Islam. In the Chinese history, Lao Tzu also treats self-knowledge as an essential attribute of wisdom (Tao Te Ching, ch. 33).
6 It does not categorically exclude societal or personal advancement in which the society or person is unfamiliar with the devletist teachings. However, consciousness about these concepts or closely related notions significantly adds to the effectiveness of progress.
Chapter II
The Purpose of States
The study of the state is one of the oldest sciences. Many philosophers, politicians and scientists tried to make sense of how we, as a species, organise ourselves in large groups. While we are capable of producing a common sense of identity around specific sets of values, symbols, myths and languages, we are comparatively unable to sustainably agree on how to organise societies. One structural finding that has withstood time are the teachings of Aristotle, who found a useful categorisation of forms of political rule. He said that a state can be ruled by one person, a group of few people or by the whole society, which is under the jurisdiction of the state. These are the only three ways societies can be governed.
It needs to be said that there is no inherent difference in quality between them.7 Rather than the form of political rule, the guiding premises of political behaviour are key. There are a few guiding themes that scholars have built their state theories on. One prominent theme is the theme of survival. Some scholars argue that our need to survive is the most fundamental instinct and, hence, the strongest factor that motivates our behaviour. While the former is definitely true, the latter is not. Surely, our survival instinct is our most fundamental instinct, and it is every state’s responsibility to secure its citizens’, as well as its own, survival – otherwise, any other purposes cannot be fulfilled. However, it is not the most crucial factor that guides our behaviour, and it surely is not the sole purpose of our existence. Scholars who base their political teachings on the argument that the states’ behaviour is solely motivated by survival considerations claim that states aim to increase their power towards other states. This has the effect that it defers much less powerful states from becoming a threat to the own state’s survival. Further, it increases the chances of withstanding aggressions from more powerful states. It does not mean that these conflicts arise solely on a military basis, as we can think about power in economic and cultural terms, too.
Now, all these thoughts hold great portions of truth, but viewing politics in this way has a major shortcoming, as we have also seen in the previous chapter. It solely describes political processes and provides one understandable yet limited explanation of them. However, we cannot derive any added value from viewing politics this way. It is not even possible to reliably predict state behaviour on this basis. We can only use this approach in hindsight to say that, for instance, state A attacked, diplomatically isolated or sanctioned state B in order to improve
