A Messy Experiment: American Practice of Democracy

Anytime a high-profile political incident happens, like the freedom of assembly turns into a riot because of excessive use of police force, or freedom to bear arms leads a wild man to perpetrate mass killing, or in connection with political elections or in a Presidential actions an intense public debate over the system ensues. Not too long thereafter, a general agreement is reached that the incident in question was due to the system built in the Constitution, and democracy is an imperfect (maybe messy) “American experiment”. As such it is forgotten until the next such occurrence, which ends with the same lackadaisical conclusion.

One would wonder whether two hundred twenty-nine years of experimentation would not be enough to learn a lesson. If it is not enough, then one would conclude that there must be something wrong either with the method of experimentation or with the people engaged in the experience, or with both. It may be both.

The Constitution is amendable

As to the first point, some possible frailties of democracy were foreseen by the framers of the Constitution (commonly called Forefathers maybe because mothers did not have any wisdom or voice at the time). But the then known shortcomings were sacrificed for achieving the joining of some intransigent and greedy local land and slave owners in the Union. Presumably because of that history, the Forefathers expressed the intent of the Constitution, “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice” (emphasis added). They did not say anywhere in the Constitution thou shall not alter any part of this treasure we are bequeathing to you nor did they engrave the Constitution on stone. They were aware that laws are made by the people, for the people, of the people, and that people’s changing needs may require changes to the document. They provided for this in its Article V. And soon after the adoption of the Constitution they drafted the Bill of Rights which is effectively additions and clarifications to the Constitution. Most importantly, its Article IX provides that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. This is the most progressive and realistic provision of these basic documents for it foresees the evolution of the society and its future needs for additional freedoms that may need to be regulated. It is worth noting that four out of six last amendments to Constitution since 1933 concern the presidential office. Therefore, the general reticence to amending these most important basic documents as the society evolves can only be attributed to the outmoded power hunger of States who seem to believe in perpetuating an imperfect union.

The miseducation of the people

As to the second point, an introspective reflection would reveal the handicaps that hold our society back from challenging the social, civic, legal, or traditional establishments and facts. One glaring characteristic of our society is that its interest in social sciences, civic matters, and world knowledge is low. Daily, constant, and overwhelming feeding of information to the public on work and consumerism guided by the industry and their advertisers and lobbyists desensitizes the public to information on serious and intellectual matters, foremost on the governance of a peaceful and healthy society. Infiltration of people with antisocial inclinations into public service becomes possible. Our foremost weakness is the poor quality of the middle school system (which is in fact the cause of college education that adds unnecessary time and expense to education). The lower is the general educational level of the people, the more they tend to believe than to reason. Yet, middle school should be where the social life and world knowledge are provided. Outside the formal education, we are responsible also "teaching" our youth a lifestyle of American exceptionalism, superiority complex, isolationism, exclusionism, aggression in competition, i.e. winning at all costs.  All of these attitudes are contrary to the needs of a community-minded democratic society because demeaning others for self-aggrandizement creates economic, racial, social, and cultural divides, hence unrest. A change in such a divided society, even for the better, would be through violence. Not to rise to the challenge of improving and building on the foundational principles of the society is tantamount either to the lack of required mental or moral capacity or to the refusal of partaking in the advancement of the common civilization. Therefore, a high quality social science education and a system of honest public information are very important for the successful practice of democracy.

Vulnerabilities of the democratic system present themselves when its built-in guarantees are insufficient to counter the exploitation of these vulnerabilities by a leader or some groups of people. Some of the public concern and debate over numerous Constitutional issues during the tenure of the present administration have their roots in earlier years. During the Clinton administration the opposition party started testing our democracy’s foibles. They took their opposition duty from the high road of serious debate on national interests to the low streets of personal attacks to mark scores for the party (1995-1998 loose-cannon Speaker Gingrich era). This strategy of GOP continued in crescendo and became their established practice. It was put in play again during the tenure of the next Democratic President, Obama (2008-2016).

Presidential dysfunction

The current President did not become President by use of force by any part of the public. He was duly elected; although it may not have been by the people’s will. It was not the will of the people but the nature of the system that brought him to the leadership. He brought with him from New York to Washington a wrecking ball from one of his construction sites and wrecked or attempted to wreck almost all of what has been done by his predecessors, thus, wasting the public’s time and treasures. He did the same with long established policies and traditions in foreign affairs. To top it all, he declared the majority of the people who do not support him unpatriotic and enemy of the people, even suggesting to the “patriots” to harass or attack the “enemies”. This is from a President who legally and publicly committed himself to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, which is ordained “to form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, …”.

Such performance by the President supported by his political party and by the people who constitute a large minority of citizens expectedly and rightly caused concern to the rest. Once again, a heated debate over the functioning of our democracy ensued. An impeachment was swept under the rug with some legal gymnastics by the Special Counsel and party politics because of a remarkably undemocratic attitude of the public that a Presidential impeachment would be a disgrace for the country (This notion is unintelligible in the presence of the principle that no one, including the President, is above the law, and that the continuation of the President’s misdeeds will be even more embarrassing and damaging for the country). Consequently, Presidential disrespect for law, responsibility, decency, and honesty continued with new energy.

The Challenge

If history repeats itself, we will be so busy in the coming years licking our wounds and be guided by our trait of forgiveness that the damage of the past four years will be put behind us quickly as another unpleasant experiment in democracy. We will even laugh about it and shrug it off. Not to take on the hard job of tackling the shortcomings of the system is cowardice, dereliction of a democratic and civic duty, and shedding a humanist responsibility. Once the thin veil protecting democracy is thus violated more and more unfit leaders will venture to abuse it.

Therefore, we should no longer wait to tackle this Gargantuan job. It is said that JFK remarked “The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining”. Some obvious examples of needed repairs are as follows:

1.     National election process: Constitution stipulates the composition of Congress in its Article I, and Bill of Rights Articles XVII and XXIII. Congressional election procedure (other than eligibility to vote in other Articles) is organized in Art. I.4.1 of Constitution, “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.” Accordingly, the original authority to determine the times, places, and manner of congressional elections is in state legislatures, but Congress may decide otherwise. This Constitutional text of “may” does not give an overriding prerogative to Congress to achieve equality in voting procedures, nor another solution to avoid State disenfranchisement of some voters by State manipulation of the time, place, and manner of voting.

Th Presidential election procedure is stipulated in Constitution Art. II.2, which is amended by Bill of Rights Article XII. The Amendment, which entered into force on 9/25/1804, six years after the ratification of the Constitution, is all about the Electoral College. Electors being “assigned” by State legislatures, instructions given to some of them may not align with the result of vote count, as it happened in the past more than once. De facto meaning of this proviso is that States’ will overrides people’s will. This provision makes the Presidential election in fact by States, not by the people. Yet, people are led to believe that they are voting for their President, a national President.

2.     Relation between Federal and States jurisdictions: Articles I.8 and IV.4 of the Constitution enumerate Federal powers in positive and mandatory terms as “The Congress shall have the power” or “The United States shall guarantee”. And, Article X of the Bill of Rights grants to States the exercise of powers not delegated to the US nor prohibited to States, thus empowering States in all other areas not mentioned in the Constitution. For example, Article I of the Bill of Rights enjoins the Congress not to make laws “respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right … to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This provision does not exclude States making laws in the areas mentioned in it. Hence, if theoretically a State were to enact abridgement of such rights Congress would have no Constitutional basis to intervene. Except maybe the provision of its Article IV.4, which reads “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government”, if the State applies for it, as the rest of the Article suggests. Therefore, legally speaking, while the Federal government is giving a guarantee for democracy, States are not under the same obligation. Is this why Art. I.4.1 empowers States with “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof”? Is this why occasionally we hear from certain States about separating from the Union? Is this freedom given to States prompted the prime objective of the Constitution defined in its first words, “in order to form a more perfect union” and which we still seem to strive for? What is the point of guaranteeing democracy for all States if the Union is not guaranteed? Is not this enough reason for a reconsideration of the wording of Constitution Art. I.4.1 to the effect that while States may organize elections to the Senate, and Congress organizes the election for the House and the President of the nation in order to achieve a more perfect democracy?

3.     Separation of powers:

a)     Between the Legislature and the Executive: Constitution provides in its Art. I.3.4 that the Vice-president presides over the Senate and can break a tie in votes. The same Art. in Section 3.6 provides that the Senate has the standing in case of impeachment of the President. These provisions are some examples of where the separation principle is blurred by giving supremacy to either institution in different situations.

Then, the Senate seems to be given higher powers by Articles I.3.7, II.1.5, and II.4. Namely and respectively, the power to remove the President, the V-P, and other public officials from office, and whether or not to give its consent to the appointment of higher public officials and to the appointment of those at the lower level.

On the other hand, Article II.3 empowers the President to convene both or one house in the event of disagreement between the two Chambers, or to adjourn them. All these provisions confuse the principle of separation, or to say the least, they do not provide for solutions for probable cases of conflict these provisions may create.

Then there is the oddity of Art. XX.1 of the Bill of Rights. Although the new Congress becomes functional on January 3, the term of the President ends on January 20. This means the President works with the new Congress for 18 days, which under certain circumstances may create a dysfunctional administration. This, of course, is in addition to fixing the election day for the first Tuesday in November. Both of these provisions can potentially put the country in an uncertain and precarious situation for almost three months, as we are currently practicing. Such a long period of transition potentially gives the outgoing President an undue opportunity to upset the peace if he is mentally and morally so disposed. There is no stronger argument than that for scheduling the election day for the month of December.

b)     Between the Judiciary and the other two powers: Art. II.2.2 of the Constitution grants the President the authority to “appoint” the Supreme Court judges (may it be by advice and consent of the Senate) and other inferior “officers “as the Congress may by law vest in the President. The selection of words “appointment” and “officers” makes the judges subjects of the Executive Branch. This is an example of politicization of the judiciary.

Furthermore, although the tenure for life was implied (in the absence of a clearer provision) in the phrase “The judges, both of the Supreme Court and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior”, a very important statement of the independence of the judiciary is absent altogether both in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It would be more in line with democratic principles if federal judges were to be elected like the members of the other two branches of government, and the life-time tenure were to be replaced by a time limit. Lifetime appointment by political bodies locks-in and imposes on coming generations the ideological and religious agenda of the party in power, like in abortion and gun rights questions.

Constitution Art. II.2.1 empowers the President “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”. This is an egregious intervention of the Executive in the adjudicated decisions of judiciary.  The argument that the pardoning power is meant to show the graceful side of the Executive on the one hand, and the correction of justice in cases where it may have failed on the other does not hold water. The first point must be thrown out as being the remnant of an antiquated royal practice representing divine qualities. The second point is an obvious expression of executive power to override the judicial power, hence a breach of judicial independence, an abuse of power. This is the high point of our basic documents which records our naivete that someone deprived of mental and moral capacity would never be President.

December 22, 2020

  

The Changing American Social Character

and

Its Effect on Politics

 

The stunning but not novel, and undesirable but not inevitable acceleration of social and political developments in the last few decades give us pause to think about at what point of history we are and who we are. In particular, the unexpected results of 2016 American presidential election, and the calamitous administration and acrimonious politics that followed the election make it clear that it is time for the people to do a serious soul-searching. A deep and wide social study is due if we were to ever avoid the repetition of electing an impulsive, impudent, mendacious, perfidious, vituperative, unethical, irresponsible president. There is disappointment, anger, fear, protests, violence, insecurity, blame in many different directions, and yes nationally and internationally. The torrent of events and their instantaneous analysis seem not to give enough time to pundits to research the core problems of the bigger picture, the society. But there is no more room and certainly not enough time, before the next election, for more patience, hope, trust in democracy, good will, faith, tolerance, nor for compromise. There should not be any doubt that the defeated former president and his followers of the same ilk are not going anywhere but towards the next election; having been emboldened with the discovery that they command up to forty percent of the voters and one of the main political parties and gotten seemingly organized under a leader. It is obvious our democracy, hence democracy in the world, is in clear and present danger, because should they come back to power we cannot expect anything other than the more of the same calamitous administration on steroids.

The legal pitfalls of our democratic system and political practice have been discussed in an earlier article. The present article contends that as a result of natural, systemic changes in the society its culture and character also change. Social culture affects the society’s political expression. With a hard self-analysis, we can see the cultural change that has been going on in the American society for decades, and that there is a need to rediscover and reinstate American idealism and trustworthiness instead of regurgitating the exalted American “greatness.” After an honest introspection we may be able to muster courage to take the necessary remedial actions. A statement attributed to James Baldwin says, “You criticize because you love”.

Here is a retrospection on social/cultural developments of recent decades:

Although most of us see the world as the “Sea to Shining Sea”, we cannot escape the reality of being one part of the occupants of this ever-shrinking earth. World events naturally affect us as we affect them. After a reluctant participation in WWI, our full participation in its sequel WWII tied the US to the rest of the world ever more than before. The US’ leadership in the war entailed the continuation of that position in the post-war era. In 1950s the US as the honest and benevolent leader was prospering, while the rest was licking its wounds from the war with the help of the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan together with its off shoots (like the Mutual Security Act) was the epitome of American generosity as much as its wisdom. The wisdom in it was that we could not enjoy peace and prosperity unless and until the rest (or at the least the most) of the world enjoyed the same. Immediately following the war, we spearheaded the founding of the UN, decolonization, gradual emergence of many new states, and the UN’s peripheral international organizations to facilitate an international dialogue in all human activities. The post-war era was a hope-filled period. Americans were typified as sincere, modern, sharing, generous, and hopeful. Accordingly, the embrace of the US as the leader naturally and rightly evoked its dominance in the international affairs.

This leadership position furthered the American prosperity and industrial and technological advance; but it also had some unforeseen social consequences. The U.S., believing in its leadership got involved in all local problems around the world. But its leadership in military and economic fields did not translate into leadership in social matters because of the American naivete of the world’s historical complexities and other nations’ different cultural and social nature. The US government as well as Americans started being perceived as too confident, self-aggrandizing, ego-centric, self-righteous, exceptionalist, imposing, arrogant, aggressive. Russian challenge to world peace and its introduction of the Cold War in the equation aggravated that perception. Not only the others’ perception of Americans but Americans’ outlook and nature started changing in 1960s in confronting the Russian challenge.

The US’ unsuccessful attempt to try stop the spread of communism by military means in Vietnam iterated the earlier stalemate in Korea. These failures shook up American generosity and hopefulness. The weakening of our traits of hope, trust and generosity led us to introversion, xenophobia, exclusionism, even to internal social divisions. By 1980, political dialogue became acrimonious. Any efforts of a few administrations’ passing success in recovering the remnants of hopefulness were undone by successor administrations (what became the norm in recent years). The ending of the Cold War did not change anything on the international scene; instead, it introduced new spoilers to the international unrest, like the radical “religious” terrorists.

We seem to have thought that the Marshall plan era would continue forever, that the rest of the world would always be dependent on the U.S. and contribute only to American prosperity and superiority. Marshall Plan would have never succeeded with that kind of premise. Obviously, the intent of the Plan was to achieve the worldwide peace and prosperity so as not to repeat the calamity of another world war. When other (or at the least some of the other) countries made good use of the Plan and became economically strong we should not now consider them adversaries but the success of our Plan. The lesson to be drawn today from the Marshall Plan is that the objective should not be “to be the greatest” at the expense of the rest of the world but to make our greatness sustainable by being successful together with the rest of the world. This is to embrace the humanity as a whole, like the Marshall Plan intended to do. Of course, that mentality was the product of the devastation of a horrendous war. Does anyone need another war to wake up to see the wisdom of 70 years ago? A resounding NO. Therefore, our attitudes of disappointment, self-righteousness, exceptionalism, aggressiveness in international affairs are unfounded.

The worst of all, and probably as a result of  the above-mentioned unfounded attitudes, generations since 1960s in particular, three generations to be exact, were taught and raised to be individualists, exceptionalists, fearless (translation, using force for what we want), and egocentrics. The entire education system, including the home-grooming of kids  (raising them with the traditional “teaching by example” method), shifted from human values to dog-eat-dog style winning for success values. We raised egocentric, narcissist, hedonist, supremacist masses. 

In 1980s “toxic politics” was introduced to Congress and from there to political life in general. Minor matters that were not disputed before, like abortion and sexual orientation, were made into heated religious and political causes. Intolerance against blacks, Asians, Muslims, Jews, gays and lesbians, women, science, law and order grew (It is reported that there are 1400 hate groups, of which about 600 are National Supremacists, about 600 Anti-government, about 100 religionists). And yes, against the government, as the unsuccessful preemptive coup to block the incoming administration from taking office demonstrated. These compulsionists constitute a large minority, and minorities resort to force by natural instinct to have their agenda accepted. Along the way, the free flow of military style firearms mostly in the hands of that group who were raised with the belief in winning by force stained our national brand more red than white and blue. Violence seems to have become the norm anywhere from home to political stage. Distrust in and armed opposition against the government is accepted as the exercise of freedom of speech (Another example: Police brutality is a manifestation of the “enforcement” concept in policing and of their exceptionalist, domineering, and arrogant upbringing and even formal training).  Inhuman actions (in breach of rules of engagement) of by some unruly members of the military in recent senseless ideological wars may also be examples.

The effect of cultural change on politics:

Exceptionalism is a perfect environment for totalitarian governance. After about five decades of incubation period the fearsome large minority ultimately came to the open and to power, as a reaction to the election of a President of color at the 2008 election. The self-aggrandizement, the exceptionalism syndrome, the superiority attitude reached the highest possible levels. The succeeding unorthodox administration confirmed by word and action that its base and its policies are National Populist. National Populism is exactly what Italy was in 1930s leading up to WWII. All Presidential statements and appearances during 2016-20 remind us of Mussolini, the utmost representative of fascism.

Many pundits are now warning about National Populism and hold the President and certain political leaders responsible for it. However, they should not hold the administration and politicians responsible for it. In democracies they do not come to those positions by aristocratic heritage, or by force; they are elected by some of us to represent us. In other words, they are the product of democracy. According to data since 1945 provided by “differing” reports, the average of voting age population in the U.S. ran around 76% of the general population. Of that number an average of 64% were registered voters. Of those who voted, the average turnout was 66.5%. The average of actual voters of those eligible were therefore 64/100x66.5/100 = 42.5% (this calculation includes the highest participation in 100 years reached in 2020 election at 66.7%). When 42% is divided in almost evenly split factions, the winning party for the U.S. Congress is a mere 22% of those entitled to decide on matters of vital importance for all. In other words, one person among us determines the lifestyle of four others. That percentage may even be lower for the presidential election if the vagaries of the Electoral College is factored in, say one for five. Unashamedly, we call this “democracy” or “self-governance”. Politicians in power often invoke “public will” for the points they make allegedly on behalf of their constituents. But the more appropriate term would be the “will of the minority I represent”, i.e. ochlocracy at best “the tyranny of minority” at worst in political science terms. Therefore, if the twenty percent of the voting age population who are Nationalist Populist were to win an election, we would have a fascist government “democratically” elected.

Rethinking the way we raise our off-springs:

The public in a functioning democracy must be able to correctly process the true information fed to them. The eligibility to vote is determined by age, not by knowledge. Those who are confused for not having the capacity of processing or of learning the complex nature of national and international issues are not interested in voting; or if they vote they do not take voting seriously or vote based on wrong information. All voters must be at a certain level of knowledge and of intellect for democracy to work for the common good. One glaring characteristic of our society is that the basic education lacks a solid structure in humanities, social sciences, civic matters, and world knowledge. Hence the entry of people with antisocial inclinations into public service or politics becomes common place. We then become vulnerable to the fallacies of democracy. Being knowledgeable in general should not be considered as being elite; it should be recognized as the standard in a modern, civilized, and prosperous society, especially in a democratic society. John Dewey expressed this concept impressively, “The school should rather be viewed as an extension of civil society and continuous with it, .… a child is best prepared for the demands of responsible membership within the democratic community.”  He was also of the view that "(i)nchoate publics consist of members lacking the critical education, time, and attention necessary to inquire. They present democracy with perhaps its most significant and undermining condition" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Specifically, the style of upbringing the generations must be changed from the aggressive and egocentric exceptionalism to strong knowledge in social sciences and respect for humanist values. The public needs to be reoriented towards reaching objectives with self-discipline and the power of knowledge instead with self-centered individualism and the power of physical force.

We cannot overlook the fact that our society, a historically very young and an immigrant society, lacks the long common history, culture and race that are the cohesive social elements in many other countries. The common elements that maintain unity in the U.S. immigrant society are hope, opportunity, security provided by the rule of law, and mutual trust. The concept of diversity and humanity should, therefore, be brought from being just a cheap political jargon to homes and classrooms as a pillar, strength and natural foundation of our society.

It is high time we come down from the pedestal and search our soul with all humility, modesty, and honesty. If we will find there the audacity and sagacity of modernizing the education system, along with the political system, we may be proud of our democracy once again, and also deservedly take pride in ourselves.

July 1, 2020

Rudderless Flagship

Rudderless Flagship

Several times in the 20^th century during the difficult periods of the international community, the United States had the trust of other countries as well as the resources to respond to the call for leadership. Since the turn of the millennium the flagship seems to have lost its rudders, and accordingly the international trust it once enjoyed. What went wrong?

Resources are not scarcer than before. People mostly blame it on the inaptness of the captains they elect to command the ship. They should rather blame themselves for that. The American public is introvert, they are preoccupied with domestic problems of their making. For one, they are prejudiced to preserving local authority, but expect assistance from the federal administration, although they are distrustful of the central authority. The problem lies in the inaptness of the people to recognize the needs of the society as a hole and their relation to the world, and of being prepared to make the necessary changes. 

Americans do not want the federal authority to interfere with their local preferences. But when locals are hit by nation-wide economic, climactic, civic, racial, or pandemic difficulties they complain that the central administration does not do its job.

For example, they do not call it socialism when Social Security, Food Stamps, Public Housings, Unemployment Benefit programs are introduced, or businesses are bailed out  during economic upheavals. They even welcome the paltry no-questions- asked hand out during the current pandemic; there are even reports that some furloughed people had more income than when they were employed. But they fiercely attack when an idea of national health care or education system as being socialist or communist idea.

They cannot relate uncontrolled gun ownership and high rate of crimes involving guns to the police being too quick or too easy in firing his.

They complain about the uncontrollable spread of privacy breaches but non-chalantly continue to contribute to the growth of the social media swamp.

They suffer from a myriad of illnesses (mainly due to obesity) but they happily make the food and medical industries richer, instead of questioning their practices.

They are perplexed by the cultural-social-economic-racial-national-religious divides in an immigrants’ society but never question the dismal quality of the K-12 education system.

They chide politicians and politics, but they do not mind being one of the countries with the lowest number of election participation, and they vote for unfit presidents or politicians time and time again even when their ship loses its rudders.

They are mystified when they vote for a president but the Electoral College elects someone else than the one they voted for; yet they do not question whether the Constitution should provide for a president for the people or for the States.

First, we have to identify whether this seemingly chronic disorientation is due to an educational or informational level of the public, or to the educational or ethical level of elected officials, or to the innate fallacies of democracy exploited by the politicians, or to all the above. Politicians say democracy is an ever-evolving experiment that needs constant care. True. But could we not have brought it to a more reasonable and workable level in more than two hundred years of experimenting with it? How much longer will we tinker with it? We desperately need to take control of the ship even if it is no longer a flagship.

We are groundlessly afraid of entrusting the federal government with administering some specific  public (social) services.  It is our government; we master it and must entrust it with services for us. In areas where the private sector is not or will no longer be interested in and is prone to monopolization the government could run, for example, in the communication field the nationwide landline system overtaken by the wireless-technology; in the transportation field a public bus service in rural areas and small towns; in the education field schooling in remote areas and poor urban communities; in health and sanitation field a nationwide communicative disease prevention and control.

Wake up people. The world is revolving, time goes by with its each revolution. Stop squandering time and treasures with needless beliefs and arguments. Do not get lost in euphemistic or alarming ideologies, like capitalism or socialism; they are malleable for multitude of interpretations thus rendering them meaningless. Do not get blurred with political distractions. Educate yourself. Do not be afraid of seeing or seeking the reality and the truth, focus on facts. Be courageous and creative to change, and to contribute to the advancement of the society and the humanity.

August 1, 2020

From “democracy” to “demoncracy”

 From “democracy” to “demoncracy”

          

“Democracy”s genetic susceptibility to conversion, mutation, morphing, deformation, transformation, distortion and perversion as surmised, maybe as presaged, by its original defenders and founders gradually became evident in our modern times. Demos created their Demogorgons to “bring death and disaster”. (The Readers Encyclopedia, Thomas Y. Crowell Co. 1948)

              In some democracies, heads of states are elected by “demons” living among “demos”, who bulldoze to the ground all the advances of “democracy” painfully achieved thus far after long fights and compromises over centuries.

            It is abundantly clear that the main reason for this infirmity of “democracy” is the absence of a rational, humanistic, cultural teaching in societies. People are trained instead with materialism that feeds their senses rather than their intellect. The lack of rational thinking and of humanistic morals seem to have stunned the intellect of finding a way to sustain “democracy”.

            Although we witnessed yesterday in front of a church a frightened, distressed, and meaningless Demogorgon, we see nowhere a courageous, determined, and intellectual “demos”. 

June 3, 2020

A Legal Assessment of Transition From the Ottomans to the Turkish State

(On the occasion of its centenary) 

Final events that led to the demise of the Caliphate Ottoman state and the rise of the democratic Turkish state are specific to their own making, as is the case for every fundamental change in a political system or organization. Consequentially, the changes may be subject to different political or legal interpretations. A brief legal assessment of the transformation of the Turkish political foundations is presented here.

The Ottoman state was successful for about three hundred years from its inception in the 13th century until the middle of the 16th, when the European states were awakening from the darkness of the Middle Ages. The restrictions of the Muslim religion introduced to the Ottoman rule upon its assumption of Caliphate in 1542, at the time the Christian world was opening to worldly advancements, caused Ottomans to fall behind in progress. Eventually in the late 18th century, the Ottoman state became the “sick man of Europe”. Hence, the Empire became the international political playing field by Russia for territorial aspirations using the pretext of protection of Christian population within the Ottoman Empire, or by Britain for colonial aspirations of economic gains. As part of this power struggle between eastern and western powers, western European powers nudged Ottomans several times during the 19^th century to modernize their state system to ward off Russian interventions. Sultan finally agreed in 1876 to a Constitution of Parliamentary monarchy. However, having reserved for himself the Constitutional authority to suspend the Parliament, he did just that in a mere eleven months after he ceremonially inaugurated it. He agreed to reconvene it only in 1908 under pressure from the military seeking modernization.

We may thus say that the parliamentary system in the Ottoman political life existed for all practical purposes as of 1908. However, the Parliament’s work was interrupted with the intervening wars with Italy over Libya in 1911 and 1912, Balkan wars over the Western Thrace in 1912 and 1913, then WWI from 1914 to 1918, and finally forced to suspend its work in 1920 after a raid of the Parliament by the occupying WWI Allied forces. In other words, it never had a chance to focus on anything to improve the political or social life of the country, from dealing with the adversities of wars. Half-hearted modernization efforts in thirty years since 1876 to keep the western powers satisfied with their plans to ward off Russian dominance over Ottomans were too little too late to vitalize a system glorious in its first 300 years but decayed in the following 300 years upon assumption of Caliphate.

That Parliament’s naïve participation in WWI as a result of a ploy by Germany led the Ottoman state to a disastrous ending not only of the war but also of the state. The Ottoman Government agreed to the armistice of Mudros in 1918. A comparison of the provisions of Armistice agreements signed separately between one victorious and one vanquished power of WWI reveals an obvious bias by one power (Britain) against Ottomans. As may be seen from the comparative provisions highlighted below in yellow, there is no provision for occupation by the Allied forces in the other defeated countries Bulgaria and Austria, or there is limited occupation of only some defined territories in Germany. In contrast, there is the open-ended right to occupy any strategic point in Turkey. Likewise, there is the surrender of defined war materiel (highlighted in purple) in the armistice signed with other vanquished powers, while the agreement with Ottomans provides once again an open-ended “compliance with such orders as may be conveyed”. This arrogance typical to the British Empire sparked the long-simmering anti-autocracy and anti-occupation feeling among both the Ottoman military and public (Like the ominous Peace Treaty signed with defeated Germany later created the Nazism and WWII).

1. Mudros armistice of 30 October 1918 provisions with Ottomans drawn by Britain contained the following differences from the armistice agreements signed by other states who surrendered to Allied powers: Allies have “the right to occupy any strategic point” (Art. 7, without providing a definition to the term Strategic point, or who and how would determine it), a “control” of all railways (Art. 15), may demand “compliance with such orders as may be conveyed (by Allied powers) for the disposal of equipment, arms, ammunition”, and transport (Art. 20), and that the Turkish prisoners be kept “at the disposal of Allied” powers (Art. 22).

The Peace Treaty (ending the Armistice) of Lausanne was concluded on 24 July 1923 (signed by the new Turkish state), four years and nine months after the Armistice, after a three-year liberation war ending with the victory of a country on which a Peace Treaty (of Sevres) was served, in the first place, to erase it from the map almost in its entirety. Lausanne treaty was the only victorious peace treaty by a vanquished nation in WWI.

2. Salonica armistice of 30 September 1918 provisions with Bulgaria drawn by France contained the following: Bulgaria will evacuate all Greek territory it occupied; it will continue to administer all territory in Bulgaria; demobilize army, except a force to maintain order; deliver all arms, ammunition and horses to Allied powers; permit passage of Allied troops through Bulgaria.

The Peace Treaty (ending the Armistice) of Neuilly was signed on 27 November 1919, within two months of the Armistice.

3. Villa Giusti armistice of 3 November 1918 provisions with Austria drawn by Italy in consultation with other allied powers, contained the following: cessation of hostilities; demobilization and immediate withdrawal of Austrian forces from occupied territories; Austrian forces to be “reduced to pre-war strength”; half of Austrian “artillery” to be “ concentrated within localities to be designated by the Allies”; evacuation of German troops within 15 days; freedom of movement for “Allied armies”; surrender by Austria all subs and navy ships.

The Peace Treaty (ending the Armistice) of St. Germain was signed on 10 September 1919, eleven months after the Armistice.

4. Compiègne armistice of 11 November 1918 provisions with Germany drawn by France contained the following: cessation of hostilities; immediate German evacuation of all territories occupied; evacuation by Germany of Rhine lands; occupation of the same territories by Allies; surrender of a detailed list of materiel to Allies; detailed conditions on the use of communications, railways, etc. by Germans; the upkeep of occupying Allied troops at the cost of  Germany; reparations for damages and restitution of gold and cash taken by Germany during the war; prescribed limitations on German navy.

The Peace Treaty (ending the Armistice) of Versailles was signed on 28 June 1919, within seven months of the Armistice.

It is also noteworthy that while the armistice with Bulgaria and Germany were signed by the Chief Commander of Allied forces, or by France, and the one with Austria by the Italian High Commander in consultation with other Allies, only the armistice with Ottomans was signed by a British local Commander without consultation with other Allies (which in fact caused protests from France and Italy). Over-the-top British actions following the armistice based on its vague provisions, despite the French and Italian warnings, gave way to the Turkish independence war.

Allied forces occupied Istanbul on May 15, 1918, and started intervening in the Ottoman administration’s daily decisions, especially those regarding the Liberation movement in Anatolia under the leadership of Atatürk. They occupied the Ottoman Parliament on March 16, 1920, on the premise that it was not willing or was incapable of stopping the Liberation movement. This action conveniently gave Atatürk a legal ground to call, three days later, on March 19, a National Assembly to convene in Ankara. The communiqué he issued on that day to all the commanders, officials and the press reflects how skillfully he presented to the nation the Parliament’s suspension as the end of the Ottoman state by foreign powers, which was his ultimate goal anyway, and which also helped his efforts to arouse survival feelings among people necessary for their morale to fight: “Finally, the occupation in Istanbul today brought to an end the seven-hundred-year existence and sovereignty of the Ottoman state. It is clear the Turkish nation is called to defend its potential for civilization, its right to exist and to independence, and its future”. (The Speech, Vol. I, p. 561, THS 3^rd edition 1989). The closed Parliament’s representatives who could escape Istanbul to travel to Ankara, and those expeditiously elected by local high officials around the country met in Ankara 37 days later, on April 23, 1920. The Allied forces’ action in Istanbul on March 19, 1920 gave legitimacy to the national liberation movement and became the beginning of the transition of the state from a Caliph/Sultanate autocracy to a democratic republic.

Atatürk led an exhausted nation to reorganize and fight. He carefully and patiently observed the legality of the liberation. Although the declaration announced the end of the Ottoman state, the National Assembly did not rescind the Ottoman Constitution and not replaced it immediately with another. It modified only the nature of the state simply by adopting a law on January 20, 1921, which moved the ownership of the sovereign powers of the state from the Sultan to the people and placed in the Assembly the authority to govern while maintaining the application of Sharia laws. This refrain from rushing to introduce an entirely new Constitution was predicated by prudence to maintain unity around the cause of the liberation war against Allied occupation. However, the statement “Sovereignty belongs to the people unconditionally and without any limitation” was a subtle but stern harbinger of the abolition of Sultanate system, which later were to become the indelible principle of the new Republican Constitution. The Assembly also identified itself as the “Turkish” National Assembly for the first time, on February 8, 1921; this was likewise a subtle indication of eventual abandonment of the religion-based state in favor of the nation based.

It is important to note the way the sovereignty of people is formulated in the Constitution. It does not say “The nation is sovereign”, or “People are sovereign”, or “People own the sovereignty”, or “Sovereignty is reserved to the people”, or even just “Sovereignty belongs to the people”. It makes clear that the sovereignty is not that of the state but is that of the people. It is expressed in the most categorical term possible: without any condition, qualification, or prerequisite, and without limits, reservations, or restrictions. The intent of this categorical dry language, without explanatory additions, was to keep the focus of the people and of the world on the objective of the military action being a people’s fight for freedom, no other entity’s. Rashness to an all-out change of the system in the middle of the liberation war would have wasted limited resources available and would have been difficult to achieve given the prevailing sensitive legal, military, and public circumstances. To note, the Ottoman Constitution provided that Sultan, being the Caliph is “holy and enjoys immunity” (Art. 5), “He reserves the right to convene, suspend, or dissolve the parliament…” (Art.7), “… Assembly members … take an oath to obey the Constitutional provisions, the country, and the Sultan. …” (Art. 46).

The National Assembly abolished the Sultanate on November 1, 1922. The abolishment was made effective not as of its date of adoption, nor April 23, 1920 (the date of convening the National Assembly), but retroactively as of March 16, 1920, the date the occupation forces raided the Ottoman Parliament. The legal effect of this retroactivity was to nullify all Ottoman governmental decisions taken against the National Assembly, legitimacy of which were questionable for operating without a Parliament.

On the other hand, considering the pervasive religious sensitivity and the on-going liberation war, Atatürk did not take this opportunity to abolish also the Caliphate; the National Assembly designated the deposed Sultan’s cousin as Caliph on November 18, 1922, after Sultan escaped under British cover on November 17. As strange as it may be, the nominal Caliphate continued even four more months after the adoption of the republican regime on October 29, 1923. However, having been divested from any state and governing authority, it was effectively downgraded to the religious representation of the majority of the population. It was not until March 3, 1924 that Caliphate was finally abolished.

All this cautious and gradual approach was to allow time for laying the groundwork for the understanding and acceptance of a system of individual freedoms by a public who lived in servitude to Sultan/Caliph for centuries. Atatürk did not want the National Assembly act like the revolutions the world has been accustomed to, an overnight change with forceful edicts and disruption of national institutions. He was conscience of the historical fact that for any social change to be successful it had to be truly and deeply understood, accepted, and internalized by the people. A societal novelty must be the property of the society. He personally travelled throughout the country several times to achieve this and to converse with public directly.

The republican regime was declared on October 29, 1923. A new Constitution was adopted on April 20, 1924, to replace the Constitution of 1876 and the law of 1921 discussed above. The Constitution introduced, among others, non-discrimination on grounds of religion and race, equality of people, independence of judiciary, freedom of individuals and of the press, privacy of communications, and Turkish as the official language. Characteristic to Atatürk’s prudent, gradual, and persuasive approach, Laicism was instituted as late as in 1928 amendment, even four years after the abolition of Caliphate. The Constitution was amended once again in 1934 to include voting rights for women. Many laws promulgated between 1924 and 1934, like the adoption of the Latin script, and of international standards from calendar to measurements were for the purpose of taking the state and the people away from the grips of the obsolete religious world to the contemporary world. The legal transformation to conform to a modern system took about ten years.

Whether the accomplishment of a legal framework for modernization in a short time was matched in the following eighty-five years by a parallel and commensurate social modernization is not within the purview of this article.                                                    March 2020