The first political memory of my childhood is the queues.
Gasoline queue. Oil queue. Tube queue.
The queue is not only an economic problem. It is a sign that the state is weakening. It is a sign that institutions are not working.
When the economy weakens, politics hardens.
When politics hardens, balance mechanisms come under pressure.
If institutions are not strong, the crisis deepens.
Turkey's problem has never been the inability to produce leaders. This land has seen strong leaders. The issue was how power was distributed and how it was controlled.
The 1961 Constitution established a more clear separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Supervisory mechanisms were institutionalized and the executive's sphere was limited.
The 1982 Constitution created a framework that empowered the executive. State authority became centralized and the capacity for counterbalance was relatively narrowed.
The 2017 constitutional amendment ended the parliamentary system. Executive power became unilateral. Decision-making and high-level appointments were placed under the direct control of the executive. Power became concentrated and the capacity for checks and balances diminished.
It was said that a strong executive would provide stability. It was said that decisions would be taken fast.
Speed and balance are not the same thing.
A car without brakes is fast. But it is not safe.
When the balance is weakened, the bill is not delayed. The economy is the first to react.
The frequent change of the Central Bank governor is not just a matter of appointment. It is directly a matter of trust. When trust is damaged, investment is put on hold. When investment slows down, production shrinks. When production shrinks, prices rise.
Economics does not argue. It reacts.
When institutions were strong and independent, prices were more under control. When trust was shaken, confidence in Turkey declined. The state paid higher interest rates. That difference came directly out of the pockets of citizens.
The costs of centralization are not only economic. Political culture shrinks. Intra-party democracy weakens. Legislation becomes ineffective. Control mechanisms lose their function. When unchecked power makes mistakes, it is less likely to correct them.
When uncertainty increases, society wants a strong leader. This is understandable. But handing power to an individual instead of limiting it increases vulnerability.
I saw the queues.
I have seen the crises.
I see salaries eroding.
Leaders have changed.
Constitutions have changed.
The system has changed.
But the habit of centralization has not changed.
Names are not the problem.
The problem is the border.
Unchecked power sooner or later turns into a crisis.
And that crisis does not hit everyone equally.
It hits the one furthest from power the hardest.