For those who still try to read politics through what is visible, Turkey is now an incomprehensible country. Harsh words from the pulpits, endless debates on the screens, rising tensions on election nights... All these are a spectacle. A surface. Noise. But politics never works only in what is said. The real politics lies in what is not allowed to be said, in what is prevented from being recorded, in the reality that drowns before it becomes data.
Looking at the parliamentary practice of the last decade through this lens, the picture that emerges is not striking - it is downright shocking. The research motions rejected by the votes of the Justice and Development Party and the Nationalist Movement Party, and the bills held without discussion are not the sum total of individual titles. This is not a list, but a method. And the name of this method is clear: power through rejection.
At this point, to still ask “which motion was rejected?” is to miss the point. The real question is this: How can so many different social, economic and political issues suffer the same fate? Femicide, earthquake negligence, inflation, unemployment, migration, education... What is the common fate of these areas with completely different dynamics?
The answer is disturbingly simple: none of these areas are allowed to become institutional knowledge.
Because when a problem is researched, measured and reported, it is no longer just an “allegation”; it becomes concrete, debatable and, most importantly, responsible. This is why it is not the proposal that is rejected. What is rejected is the possibility of institutionalizing the truth.
All classical political analyses are insufficient here. This situation cannot be explained by “majority power”. It can be understood in terms of a deeper concept: epistemic power. That is, the power to decide what the truth is, what information is considered valid, what data is considered “official”.
This is exactly the order established in Turkey in the last decade. Political power has taken control not only of decision-making processes but also of the production of reality. This is why the rejection of research motions is not a technical procedure; it is an intervention in the birth of knowledge.
In a normal parliamentary system, the process is clear: a problem arises, it is investigated, data is generated, a report is prepared, it is discussed and a solution is developed. This chain is the foundation of modern politics. But when the first link in the chain - research - is systematically broken, none of the remaining steps can take place.
And the consequence of this break is that there is no data, so there is no institutional truth.
At this point a dangerous rift begins between society and the state. Society lives, feels, experiences, but the state does not define it, does not register it, does not recognize it. Thus reality is divided into two: the lived reality and the recognized reality.
This dual structure is especially visible in the field of economics. Without independent research on inflation, without measuring the effects of the minimum wage, without analyzing income distribution, economics ceases to be a technical discipline. An economy that cannot be measured becomes open to debate, and what is open to debate quickly turns into a narrative.
And whoever constructs the narrative determines economic reality.
This is not just an economic issue. This is the politicization of reality.
The earthquake issue is the harshest and most naked example of this mechanism. Because the issue here is not just data, but life itself. If zoning policies are not investigated, if inspection mechanisms are not examined, if the responsibility of public institutions is not questioned, the disaster will remain just a natural phenomenon.
An earthquake is a natural phenomenon; a disaster is political.
Without research, this distinction disappears. Causality is erased. Responsibility evaporates. And only the narrative of “inevitable fate” remains. This is the politically safest position. Because a disaster without a cause cannot be held to account.
In the case of migration, the same strategy works in a different way. Migration is by its very nature a measurable phenomenon. Numbers, distribution, economic and demographic impacts can be clearly demonstrated. But this is precisely why research is not done. Because everything that is measured necessitates debate, and debate produces uncontrollable results.
Unmeasured migration creates a manageable space of uncertainty.
Education is the most long-term dimension of this structure. Because education determines not only the present but also the mental map of the future. When education policies are not researched, inequalities become invisible, ideological orientations are left out of the discussion and the system becomes an unquestionable field.
When you put all these headings together, what emerges is no longer a political preference, but a regime character.
The main characteristic of this character is: not to solve problems, but to prevent problems from turning into knowledge.
At this point, the role of parliament has changed radically. Parliament is no longer just a law-making body; it has also become a filter that prevents the institutionalization of truth. The systematic rejection of research motions, the blocking of general debates and the exclusion of bills from the agenda are the tools of this filter.
This is often interpreted as “parliament is not working”. However, the problem is not dysfunction, but rather a functioning one. The parliament is working - but not to produce the truth, but to prevent its production.
The act of refusal is therefore not passive. On the contrary, it is a very active political intervention. Every motion rejected removes not only a debate but also a potential responsibility. Because no investigation means no record; no record means no evidence; no evidence means no accountability.
This mechanism is highly effective in the short term. Because uncertainty is a controllable area. If there is no data, everyone talks, but no one can say anything for sure. This gives the government a wide room for maneuver.
But there is a limit that this mechanism cannot cross: reality itself.
Reality is not found in texts, but in life. Inflation may be controversial in official data, but it is felt in the market. Unemployment rates can be changed, but not the reality in people's lives. Earthquake reports can be rewritten, but the reality of debris does not disappear.
Therefore, it is not reality that is repressed, but the process of its visibility. And when visibility is postponed it does not disappear - it accumulates.
Every motion rejected today is in fact a file of accounts left for the future. These files are not closed. They accumulate, intensify and return when a certain threshold is crossed.
Let us now concretize this abstract framework:
In Parliament in the last 10 years
• Over 2000 research motions rejected
• Over 4000 law proposals were not even put on the agenda
- Numerous motions on femicide have been systematically rejected
- Critical issues related to earthquake and disaster management were not investigated
- Independent review processes on inflation, income distribution and poverty were not carried out
- High impact issues such as migration and demographic transition left unmeasured
These numbers are not statistics.
These numbers have been systematized is the balance sheet of a regime of denial of knowledge.
And now the issue comes to its most critical point:
Is this order sustainable?
No, no, no.
Because reality can be postponed but not canceled.
And every postponed reality does these three things:
grows
hardens
and when he comes back, he washes it
That is why what is happening today is not a stabilization but a delayed crisis.
And at this point we come to the inevitable question:
What should be done?
This question cannot be answered with slogans. It requires mechanisms.
First: mandatory research threshold
Investigative motions on specific topics - such as femicides, disasters, economic crises - cannot be left to political voting. With a certain number of signatures, the investigation process should be initiated automatically. Because investigating the truth is not a choice, it is an obligation.
Second: independent data institutions
In the fields of economy, migration, disasters and social policies, no healthy discussion can take place without the establishment of institutions that produce transparent and auditable data independent of political authority. No data, no democracy.
Third: irrefutable control mechanisms
The parliament's authority to investigate and audit should no longer be dependent on a majority vote. Otherwise, there will be not oversight but majority domination.
Fourth: legal transparency obligation
Public tenders, disaster expenditures, fund management and social support mechanisms should not be made explicable, but should be made subject to explication.
Fifth and most critical: social demand
No system corrects itself from above. If society does not demand data, does not ask for accountability, does not pursue questions, no mechanism will work. The greatest guarantee of truth is not laws, but persistence.
And now the last word:
This article is not a criticism.
This is a diagnosis.
Problems are not suppressed in Turkey.
Questions are being suppressed.
But history has shown time and again:
Questions can be silenced.
But answers cannot be silenced.
Every motion rejected today is a forced reckoning for tomorrow.
And when that day comes, it will not be about this:
“Who was right?”
The question will be:
“How could you ignore a reality that is so obvious, even in the absence of so much data?”