Tuesday, 12 July 2011By Gözde Damla Citler
The Journal of Turkish Weekly conducted an exclusive interview with the Head of the USAK Science Committee Prof. Ihsan Bal regarding the assembly of the 61st government and the vision of the new cabinet. Prof. Bal stated that there are three main areas in the new cabinet structure, which are security, economics, and society. Prof. BAL said that the current politics of economic and security areas have been preserved as well as developed, and that restructuring the ministries which are responsible for social politics is an important step towards Turkey’s 2023 goals. Prof. BAL also underlined the fact that the newly formed EU Ministry would contribute to Turkey-European Union relations in a way that is not restricted to just membership negotiations.
Q: How would you assess the restructuring of the 61st government with the new ministries? Will this new structure bring dynamism to the current situation?
A: We need to examine the cabinet structure in three areas. The first one of these areas is economics. It is understood that an economy cabinet has been formed in order to develop stable and sustainable economic progress that is receptive to developments around the world while preserving former experiences. There is no denying that we have seen good, efficient progress in the economy. Engaging a confident staff which can preserve and carry on with the current trend is anticipated and logical.
The second area is security. The authority of the government over the security bureaucracy has long been discussed in the sense of the Turkish Armed Forces, police, and gendarme forces or the theoretical infrastructure of security. It can be understood, in this case, that the government wants to keep its former experiences and new ones together. One example of this is the appointment of the former Ministry of Interior as Deputy Prime Minister, and the other is the Prime Minister’s appointment of a Member of Parliament, who has been with him for a long time, as Minister of Interior. When we look at these and other appointments such as the Minister of National Defence, it can be understood as the government trying to conduct its political preferences in accordance with the security bureaucracy.
Security in Turkey, naturally, is not restricted to process management by the political actors who are related to security nor is it limited to the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Interior, or Minister of National Defence. There is also an international equation which affects security. For instance, a crisis in Syria would automatically draw the attention of other ministries to the subject as well. A crisis in the Balkans, a NATO intervention to Libya, or the struggle with the diversified financial resources of PKK terror such as in France, Germany, and Europe shows us that the security issue is related to other ministries’ areas of responsibility as well as to the ministries which are directly related to it. Carrying on with Ahmet Davutoglu as the Minister of Foreign Affairs tells us that there is no surprise element in the appointments, and even if there is, that is in the appointment of the Minister of National Defence.
Another question that everyone is curious about is whether the expansion of the democratization process in Turkey will continue. Which way would the pendulum swing in the freedom/security balance? Would the government think primarily in terms of freedom or security? When we look at the structure of the new cabinet, it can be inferred that Turkey will try to take both along with consensus and coordination. There is an impression that they will expand democracy and enlarge the areas of freedom. It is also apparent that they will take the security dimension very seriously with a jurisdiction which relies on law and works quicker than before, an efficient police and gendarme force, and a vigorous intelligence structure. It gives the impression that they would not sacrifice security for freedom or vice versa. Looking at the current picture, those may be the immediate implications. Time will tell how the application of these institutions goes. These ideas may be revised in the future, but the current picture is as such.
The third area is the general health, social, and environmental politics of the government. It can also be said that there is an additional understanding of cooperation. It is apparent that the government will be insistent on maintaining current health politics. Continuing with the same Minister of Health is a sign of that. However, when we look at the environment politics it is visible that there is an increase of awareness. For instance, a new ministry has been formed by combining Water and Forestry, and another one has been merged under the Ministry of Urbanization and Environment. These ministries have been formed with the hope and understanding that some of the inadaptable developments, such as the destruction of the environment and forests by abuses called the 2/B acts by urban planning schemes, are indeed solvable. Those ministries were already developed with decree laws before the elections. They have become performer ministries and they have been built with a new concept. All of these analyses are to be confirmed naturally, but these stand out as their first implications. There is an assessment that sees environment, water, forestry, and urbanisation altogether. Another important issue is the insisted emphasis on Turkey’s research and development plans and the goals of 2023. Some of the goals that had been declared during the election campaign earlier this year were being one of the biggest and most important countries in the world, and being able to construct planes, automobiles, and the like domestically. It can thus be understood that some of the management responsibilities which overlap these declarations will be taken by these newly-structured ministries. Within this framework, combining research and development plans with the Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology, thinking Communication and Transportation together, or making up a Ministry of Development which will be solely responsible for development issues are important visions.
Q: How do you assess the foundation of the European Union Ministry in terms of the European Union membership process?
A: It is important to point out that Egemen Bagis was already an incumbent as the minister who was responsible for membership negotiations, previously. However, in this new phase, it is very important that the EU Ministry has been founded as a performer ministry which will be taken more seriously, which will be more powerful, with a broader concept and responsibility solely for the European Union process. This means that Turkey’s EU vision and progress, which was said to be left inactive for some time, will gain momentum and become an important agenda once again. It will not be limited only to membership negotiations, but a continuation is going to be seen in terms of social, political, forensic, diplomatic, and cultural ties and approaches with Europe and Europeanization. This progress has the tendency of growing out of just opening and closing the acquis chapters. It is indeed a very promising development that this kind of a ministry was founded with coherent institutionalization.
In conclusion, we can mention a Council of Ministers which combines the past with the present experiences, conducts some structural changes, and increases their performer characteristics with legal arrangements. Deeds, of course, will be more informative than words. The current family photo of the 61st government gives us certain impressions and messages, but once they set out to work, time will tell how well these messages met requirements.
|
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Gözde Damla Citler (JTW)
|
|
