In his article titled ‘Where Does ’State Rationality‘ Fit into the Ruling Block?’, Ümit Aktaş summarizes all aspects of the debate on ‘state rationality’ initiated by CHP Central Executive Committee member Bülent Kuşoğlu, defining the ruling block as follows: ‘…the ruling bloc is a concentration of power comprising political power (and mainstream parties), the bureaucracy, and capital with its various factions.’[1]
First, the fact that capital holds a dominant position within the ruling bloc does not transform its relationship with other components into a command-and-control relationship. Political power and political parties in general ensure the social legitimacy of the ruling bloc.
Second, by the very nature of the capitalist mode of production, capital exists solely as multiple forms of capital in competition with one another.
Third, the bureaucracy becomes even more important during periods when the political establishment is unable to establish a hegemonic project in the face of the diverging interests of capital.
The ruling classes, or the dominant historical bloc, impose their ideological stances on society as a whole by steering a “civil society” founded on consent and approval through the cultural and ideological “hegemony” they have established. The political society, which constitutes the ruling class’s apparatus of coercion, and civil society, which forms the apparatus of hegemony, combine to constitute the state in the broadest sense. The ruling bloc governs society through hegemonic projects aligned with its accumulation strategies.
At this point, the concept of accumulation strategies refers to the practices developed for the implementation of a specific economic growth model and the preconditions outside the economy. The concept of the hegemony project, on the other hand, is a strategic contribution developed by drawing inspiration from Gramsci’s discussion of hegemony. According to Gramsci, who argues that socio-economic conditions alone do not bring about political change but rather create the conditions under which political change becomes possible, hegemony is made possible by the realization of a series of social conditions. First and foremost, it must be noted that the level of development of material production relations serves as a structural foundation for the formation of social groups and the transformation of society.[2]
The opposition bloc has been caricaturing its criticism of the ruling party—from the past to the present—not based on the analysis mentioned above, but by liberalizing it through rhetoric such as ‘Erdoğan/the Palace/the Strongman,’ and is failing—or unable—to construct a class-based critique of the ruling bloc based on an analysis of real issues!
Yet when we look at the ‘Presidential Government System’—which forms the ‘bureaucratic‘ pillar of today’s ruling bloc—what emerges is not an “Erdoğan/Palace/One-Man Rule” scenario, but rather a massive bureaucratic structure.
The Presidential System of Government consists of the President, the Vice Presidents, the Presidential Policy Boards, and the Ministries.
The Presidential Policy Boards consist of at least three members;
-Council for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policies.
-Council on Education and Teaching Policies.
– Economic Policy Board.
-Security and Foreign Policy Council.
-Legal Policy Board.
– Council on Culture and Arts Policies.
– Health Policy Board.
– Council on Social and Youth Policies.
– Council on Agricultural and Food Policies.
– Council on Local Government and Disaster Policies.
The ministries fall under the Presidential Policy Boards. The structure of the ministries is, in itself, a bureaucratic entity.
When the ruling bloc devises hegemonic projects in line with its accumulation strategy, the capital factions, political parties, and bureaucracy within the bloc work in harmony. When economic growth slows or stagnates, the bureaucratic structure comes to the fore. During economic crises, the ruling bloc may resort to coercive measures, and social and political rights may be restricted.
The medium-term program implemented in our country under Mehmet Şimşek’s leadership requires an authoritarian approach because it relies on a transfer of income from workers to the capitalist class by suppressing consumption and labor income. For this reason, the bureaucratic structure takes center stage.
The political parties comprising the People’s Alliance are making intensive efforts, in conjunction with the Presidential Government System, to pursue a hegemonic project aligned with a strategy of accumulation based on the construction and defense industries, to ensure harmony among capital factions, and to secure profit realization across all sectors.
The opposition bloc that must stand against this system is the social opposition, which should be led by social democratic and socialist parties, trade unions, and labor organizations. However, a look at the actual situation reveals that the opposition bloc is fragmented, unable to analyze the structure of the ruling bloc, and incapable of formulating an alternative hegemonic project to counter the one established by the ruling bloc.
For this reason, there is no need for the ‘state mind”—which has been the subject of debate over the past week and to which grand missions have been ascribed—to govern Turkey and shape the opposition. This is because the ruling bloc governs the country through the Presidential Government System.