Devlet: The New State

Prologue

Mankind’s most important questions centre around the organisation of our lives within societies. Although countless scholars, philosophers and politicians have invested vast amounts of energy and time in making sense of the way of our societal organisation, we seem to have made very little progress in relation to the century-old efforts that we have put into advancing as a species. Of course, there are underlying agendas and interests – among many other factors – that hinder effective and efficient progress. Moreover, it might well be a misconception on my part to think that we have the necessary knowledge to transform our societies in a way that is aligned with the purpose of life. However, I defend that our societies function far below their true potential – not because we do not want to, but because the structures simply guide us into this inefficiency. The main problem is that we are unaware of what we are doing on this planet and why we do it. At the very best, our current goals are limited in their usefulness and reaching those goals will lead us to a dead end if we continue to move in the direction of said goals. This holds true for our personal lives, the societies we live in and the politics that guides our societies.

I believe that the philosophical background of much of the work produced until today is insufficient to understand a state’s purpose and hence, its role. It is needless to say that all philosophical assumptions limit the production of intellectual work; even having no assumptions is a limiting attitude in its own way. We can compare this to a journey to an unfamiliar place. Having a map is useful to reach the destination, but the map would be useless if it depicts a different country. However, not having a map does not increase our chances of reaching the destination, either. To get where we want to be, we must first be sure that we have the right tools to get there. But before that, it is necessary to identify our destination. Politics should be functioning in the same way. There should be clarity about the purpose of our existence and then what is needed to get there. Politics is the institutional vehicle that helps us fulfil this purpose by means of organising societal conduct.

This might be easy in theory, but in terms of practicability, there are significant obstacles grounded in the complexity of our societies as well as in the misconception of what political systems should do for them. In this work, I propose a new state theory which reaches beyond the limitations of our current political understanding. The theory is named ‘Devletism’, originating from the Turkish word for state. I define it as:

A form of societal organisation that aims for joint and

continuous progression through the advancement

of genuine knowledge.

Beginning with the philosophical underpinnings of this new school of state theory, I aim to rectify our understanding of a political system’s purpose that naturally stems from our purpose as individual human beings.

During the process of writing this treatise, some of the people I have talked to have described the ideas in this work as a utopia. I would not go that far. In essence, this work proposes just a minor readjustment of focus. While I reject previous philosophical assumptions about our individual purpose in life – and with them the perception of the purpose of political systems – I would not have been able to develop the devletist idea without the works of past great minds. The devletist idea is, hence, just a logical continuation of past achievements, which are limited in providing future guidance from this point onwards due to the different societal circumstances of our time. A time might come when Devletism also becomes insufficient to provide guidance to individuals, societies and states. However, it can serve as an important building block for the workings of future scholars, politicians, philosophers and any other person who aims to improve our existence on this planet and maybe even on other planets. The purpose of this work is to establish a state philosophy capable of elevating our societies to a higher standard of living and, most importantly, increasing the quality of life without, paradoxically, these material goals constituting the ends of policy actions. This will be picked up later in greater detail.

On a more personal note, I would like to thank all the valuable people in my life for the opportunity to learn from them. I would like to express my gratitude for all the support, discussions and motivation I received from those who believed in me and the value of my work. Moreover, I would also like to express my deepest love and admiration to all political scientists who continuously add to the advancement of our beautiful field of science. And to the great political minds and hands of the past, who have shaped what we call history.

Chapter I

Philosophical Foundations

A thought is like a plant. Just like a plant needs soil and water to exist, a thought needs a philosophical foundation and constant contact with the world to grow. If it happens that this thought can be entertained throughout a variety of different settings in our reality, it strengthens its right to exist. The more a thought can survive tests against real world scenarios, the more authoritative the core premises of this thought. This also means that the soil from which this thought arises, the philosophical foundation, must be an equally sustainable system. Similarly, when a thought or belief system (philosophical foundation) successfully tests against different settings in the real world constantly, it can be thought to encompass great portions of what we call the truth. Now, the truth is a particularly difficult concept and, as such, subject to much debate. Some claim that the truth is not absolute but relative or subjective. Viewing the truth as something flexible or subjective is a philosophical foundation in itself. Thoughts that are born out of this view are likely to produce meaningful results only in the light of this view that the truth is subjective. It makes it difficult to compare this ontology to other philosophical foundations with different ontological assumptions. Nonetheless, there needs to be a discussion on the nature of the truth. Here, it is defended that there is an objective truth. This view is not new.¹ However, many argue that this objective truth cannot be perceived in its natural form since people view the world in different ways. Although the latter is undeniably true, it does not conflict with the notion that there is an objective truth. We could, for example, say that the fact that people view the world differently is an integral part of the true reality. Or we could argue that the different perspectives arise from a lacking awareness of the concept of objective truth. Both ideas are compatible with the assumption that there is a universal objective truth. Such a truth is not affected by the different beliefs people hold on what is true or not, while the objective truth could be one that has a place for those different beliefs on the truth.

On the other hand, arguing that there is no such objective truth but only many different true individual realities creates a direct conflict between the two ontological views as it does not allow both to coexist. This is because the relative approach treats each subjectively constructed reality as a fully independent entity in its own right, ascribing a validity to each and every perceived reality that needs to be accepted. On this ground, adopting the idea that there is an objective truth would infringe the validity of the subjective truths. Another shortcoming of this thinking is an implicit dependency on the truth. What happens to this subjective truth without human beings? It is hard to argue that truth as a concept ceases to be without the existence of humans or other consciously reflecting organisms. It follows that humans can hold different views on the world but cannot claim that those views and beliefs are true if they are not representative of the objective truth. This finding mainly illustrates the existence of the concepts of right and wrong, which has significant implications for the judiciary of the devletist state.

Again, the absolute approach, too, allows those differently perceived realities to exist. They are situated hierarchically under the overarching umbrella of the universal truth. Such an approach does not conflict with the notion that there are different perceptions of the world; there can be a multitude of different perceived realities without changing the properties of the objective truth. It also does not reduce the validity of subjective perceptions but subordinates them to the objective truth. Hence, this encompassing view that there is, indeed, an objective truth is more powerful than the opposing ontological assumption of the subjective truth.

Next, some could argue that even if there is such an objective truth, it would not be possible for us to fully reveal it. However, we as human beings can technically perceive and even understand this objective truth, so I claim. Our species might not be able to do so today, but in countless millennia in the future. This does not make current human efforts to advance obsolete since these are necessary steps to moving closer to understanding the objective truth. I go even further by saying that we ought to understand this objective truth. Reaching this understanding of the objective truth of the universe is the sole purpose of every organism’s existence. We shall shortly see why.

In search for the answer to the question as to why this is the ultimate purpose of our, and every other species’, existence, we can use hypothetical thought experiments to single out this question’s answer from a wide array of philosophical views on this question.² We could imagine that there is only one human being left on this planet. Said human knows she is the only human and there will not be another human being while she exists. What would be a meaningful driving factor of her behaviour? Next to sustaining her life by searching for water and food, her lonely existence must also consist of activities that require her to use the extended consciousness that humans possess – in comparison towards plants and animals, which they do not have yet. Without social contacts, the factors of love and friendship are useless in providing answers to what would influence her behaviour. The only exception might be seeking closeness to animals and spending time with them, but communication and sharing of experiences would be limited and, thus, not fulfilling. Seeking enjoyment in visiting beautiful places or engaging in thrilling activities are equally weak explanations of what would drive behaviour here because these activities will, at some point, lose their positive effect on the psyche of our last human being. For one, they will become repetitive and purposeless, but there is also nobody to share those experiences with. The only activity that can be continuously exercised without seizing to be interesting is to gain knowledge and, hence, move closer to an understanding of the objective truth. With or without other humans, the essence of knowledge production remains the same. It does not gain more importance within a society than it does without one. The accumulation of knowledge is independent and inexhaustible because knowledge itself exists independently. No organism is bound to another organism to explore the truth. Having support from others can surely add to the efficiency of the process, but it does not constitute a necessity. Therefore, knowledge is unconditionally independent. If we assume that there is, indeed, a purpose for our existence, then it must be something that exists independently and is not tied to the condition that there are other organisms that would make the existence of other purposes, such as love and friendship, possible. Every human action, except for one, depends on the existence of, or interaction with, other human beings. Either we need them to engage in the action in the first place, or they are necessary for the action to become meaningful. The only action that does not require such a constellation is knowledge production. Since knowledge production is the only human action that exists independently, it must be the sole purpose of our existence.

In the context of politics, we can think about similar scenarios. Every political system, to my knowledge, was either concerned with gaining more power – diplomatically, economically or militarily, or all three of them – or with increasing the material comfort of its society. In the case of power, let us think about a nation that was able to conquer the entire world. What would happen next? Surely, the goal then would be to maintain this status quo, but even when this situation can be maintained for centuries, a question as to what the driving factor of all subsequent acts would be would arise. Well, we could say that the ruler of the political system would then try to conquer other planets and galaxies and let us suppose that she was able to do so, too. What would happen next? What would be a meaningful motivation for her behaviour? There is nothing meaningful we could think of because the actions, until this point, were aimed at reaching this situation. But no agenda guides behaviour beyond that. It follows that power considerations are exhaustible and, therefore, cannot serve as a basis for understanding the purpose of states.

The same logic can be applied when considering the aspect of wealth. Let us imagine that the entire world has reached such a level of material comfort that every person lives in excessive luxury and has no material concerns. How would our behaviour change? What would drive subsequent behaviour in such an environment? Here again, reaching such a goal would lead the political system to a dead end because there is nothing more to achieve since everyone is already living in ultimate luxury. In both examples, reaching their goals would end their existence because they can, in theory, be reached. This is not the case with knowledge, which makes pursuing knowledge significantly more superior to pursuing power or wealth and comfort. A political system concerned with reaching a better understanding of the universe will never run into a dead end because there will always be questions that reach beyond the acquired pool of knowledge without becoming less relevant than the answers to the previous questions. Even what is believed to be known will often turn out to be untrue and require re-evaluation. It follows that the purpose of our existence must be centred around the search and development of knowledge and not around increasing power or wealth and comfort.

Why is this important? Let us return to our plant and its soil and water. This work establishes a new state theory – this is the thought and metaphorically the plant. To understand the nature of this thought, we need to see under which conditions it came into existence. The philosophical foundation in which this state theory is grounded is what was described above: the objective truth and our purpose of existence tied to it. The purpose of every organism’s