Will Edgeworth Turn over in His Grave?

The Turkish businessmen speaking to the Financial Times during the July 22, 2007 general elections in Turkey had helped write the headline as “The White Turks want AKP in power, but will vote for CHP.” At that time, as we made an assessment over the attitude of the White Turks, we had resorted to Edgeworth and Sen: Edgeworth, in 1881, in his renowned article titled “Mathematical Physics: An essay on the application of mathematics to the moral sciences” declared that “the first rule of the economy is for individuals to act with/for personal interest.” Since then, it is a widespread opinion that economic decisions of the neo-classical theory are reached within a certain frame of rationality based on “personal interests.” The subject of discussion varies from, whether or not morals or normative assessments would find a place for themselves during the rationality process, to different rationality definitions. The orthodox reading preaches that positive economy is shaped independently from normative judgments, i.e. solely by “personal interest”. Amartya Sen raised objections to this complex and abstract homo economicus scenario for branding people “Rational Fools.” The rational economic human, not being different from the debilitation of abstract human, has many self-contradictions. Normative judgments of some capitalists, also called the “White Turks,” who invalidate their own economic interests set the most interesting example to this state of conflict.

Following the process that has been initiated with the recent commotions in Taksim Square, Istanbul, they have separated “Elite Kemalism” from their position of six years ago, and openly declared that they do not want to have the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) in the government. The developments of the last ten days are nothing but taking shape of the expression and the manner of this “declaration” and of its actors involved. There is no serious problem although this process of expression has turned into anarchy, the discourse lacks coherence, and the masses that do not normally join each other neither in political, nor sociological nor economic-political sense have emerged.

Of course such an objection, a protest and a mass behind them may form. The problem is how one would analyze the emerging picture. What does it mean to say “We have a heterogeneous mass in front of us”? Will we overcome the psychological tension of this heterogeneous mass and focus on the points that would help us to make political and sociological analyses or will we keep repeating the generic wishes and desires? The liberal interpretation preaches us that the problems will be solved through a “civilization of primitive, social and political give-and-take” by skipping politics, sociology and economy as if none of them are relevant. This approach however, in a short-cut, offers us nothing but the murder of politics. In other words, by leaving the realm of selfish sensitivities, implicit objections and psychological stresses, unless the scene of the last ten days is transformed into a “clear political position” it will fail to have a long lasting reciprocity with the world of politics.

What kind of an attitude you have towards the issues, from the Kurdish question to the Syrian crisis, from a new Constitution to the state-citizen relations, from the new Turkey economy-politics to the religion-state affairs, and how consistent you are about them, help your political position to be defined. If you cannot express your position in all these headings or if you do not have consistent suggestions, it will be useless for you to expect that your objections will be met by the world of politics. Under these circumstances, you build a world of wishes through your conjunctural overtures by adopting a selective democratic attitude. When the de facto results do not occur, you break away from the poli