In evaluating the role of parliament in our political system, we should be able to consider the late Ottoman period and the early years of the new Turkey together.
Especially when we look at the debates in the Second Constitutional Monarchy Period Parliament, we can see a style of politics that is both extremely level-headed and solution-oriented.
The same can be seen in the debates in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, including the pre-Republican war years. While this level undoubtedly has legal and structural dimensions, it is also directly related to the meaning that individuals attach to politics and the role they try to play in parliament.
When the approach that saw parliament as a platform for social work and a center for decision-making was replaced by an approach that saw it as an address for personal career and fame, the level of politics dropped and the function of parliament weakened. Some are content to say that parliament has become dysfunctional because of the change in the system of government and prefer not to say anything about moral decay.
Of course, in times of transition, parties, parliament and ministers may find it difficult to comprehend their new responsibilities and duties. But what is more serious is the deformation caused by the breakdown of the links between the world of values and the sense of responsibility.
Regardless of the system of government, they cannot play a social role in the face of corrupt habits and behavior patterns disguised as political.
In recent years, the attitude of getting rich fast, gaining power the easy way, and achieving personal satisfaction through the pulpit and business cards, which has become publicized and crossed the boundaries of private life, has become commonplace.
In the past, there is no doubt that the personal weaknesses of prime ministers, bureaucrats and members of parliament affected the level of politics. However, the fact that this has become commonplace and widespread has removed the measure of what is normal and right.
On April 23rd, as much as we discuss our responsibility and complicity towards our children, we should also boldly question the current state of the parliament.
Although institutions do not consist of individuals, they exist with individuals and create perceptions with individuals.
The sacrifice and courage of the first parliament and the deputies in that parliament, who led the War of Independence and assumed all authority and power since the other organs of the state had not yet been formed, should shed light on today and tomorrow.
It is not possible to build the dignity of the parliament with a profile of politicians who are glued to their seats and have surrendered to the network of interest networks, not the society.
Addressing the concept of sovereignty not only in relation to independence in the international arena, but also in its interaction with public interest and social interest is of great significance for the future of Turkey and even for the existence of all humanity.