| |
 I believe that the United Nations
Conference II On Human Settlements (Habitat II), to be held between June 3-14 1996
in İstanbul has an identity other than its official one. To be fully aware of this
identity we should not limit our perspective by the Conference, which is a representative
organizatio, alone.
It is assumed that
this conference will have a unifying effect and help strengthen international cooperation.
More importantly, it will be based on the premise that the problems of human settlement
cannot be solved by current bureaucratic administrative approaches. Furthermore,
the conference perspective considers such bureaucracy to be the very root of these
problems. The binding decisions of the conference will naturally be handled by governments,
but the United Nations firmly believe in allowing social institutions to play a constructive
role in Habitat II.
We have information
that this option is being discussed at preliminary meetings and could well transcend
Habitat II and lead to the setting up of new organizations. However, the goals and
the realization of this activity are inevitably limited by the restrictions of the
organization. There is the assumption, for instance, that the decisions taken in
this Conference will solve the problems of human settlements, and that these decisions
will be significant for the future of humanity. Whereas every "reasonable" person
admits that the human settlement problem cannot be solved in a conference that is
likely to become a decision-making marathon, the United Nations still considers the
"representative decision processes"of governments to be the basic decision-making
tool. But everyone also knows that the demand for human settlements to be planned
and for these plans to be carried out in particular ways assign different functions
than those usually ascribed to representative bodies.
On the one hand, we
have social actors and a large cast of organizations, on the other a form of organization
is accepted whereby any actors other than the state are mere "extras" in the production.
While a different democracy, a different social organization, a different settlement
ethos are in question, is it to be assumed that the political, professional and academic
organizations that are somewhat lacking in conceptual substance, will undergo a transformation
and offer a "brand new ethos"? On the other hand we have social organizations trying
to open a "legitimate space" for themselves, outside the official Habitat Conference.
They stand on a "real" platform outside the "fictitious" structure of the Conference.
When these two formations (one fictitious the other "real") are evaluated together,
we can see more clearly what needs to be done.
First we must do something
other than merely accepting the Conference as it is, or reject it as a whole. If
there is to be an encounter on a legal level, it should not be on the same platform
as the state. The state can be accused of washing its hands of its political and
cultural responsibilities. What should be done, is to preserve the useful aspects
of official structures, even to reinforce them, but the state should be prevented
from invading the social sphere. Even the fact that the Conference itself is regarded
as an activity that will offer "solutions", points to the reinforcement and legitimization
of the formation of official structures to monopolize the social sphere. On the other
hand, the present structure does not leave much room for social initiatives. Even
in the most unusual instances, what is done is only the development of mechanisms
that will enable the official sphere to assume a social function. Two forms of organization,
one which should be distinctly political the other social, blend onto each other.
Consequently, the Habitat Conference shares in this confusion.
I would like to stress
that another unofficial Habitat is possible. Furthermore, I will dare claim that
otherwise a "Habitat" is not possible.
I have stated that
Habitat has an identity distinct from its official identity, one apart from the Conference
which is in itself a representative event. I believe that few are aware of this identity
and that something should happen in the social sphere to evoke that awareness and
not in the official sphere.
The fact that no real
alternative has been brought forth, in spite of poor environmental conditions, and
that the roads leading to such alternatives are blocked, necessitates a common effort
that does not restrict democratization to a "political level." That is where the
essential discussion starts: Some institutions in Turkey prefer to build up vertical
relations, rather than strengthening the horizontal relations that exist among themselves.
By encouraging political segregation, they convert the sphere of civil society into
a "fissured ground." But questions concerning the environment, the city and services
have no relation whatsoever with political concepts or references. Politics cannot
deal with worldly matters from "high up in the clouds."
Institutions of political
society, far from transforming the official sphere that nurtures them, destroy the
public sphere by annihilating the existence of civil society. They do not realize
that they belong to a separate sphere dissimilar to that of official structures.
They renounce their own voice for the sake of politics. Perceived as institutions
that solve problems that the official structures cannot deal with bureaucratically,
institutions of civil society are polarized. They leave their common grounds to official
institutions and make no progress in terms of democracy or in terms of developing
the ability of society to solve its own problems. Politicized social institutions
merely transfer social sensibilities and abilities to the official sphere.
I believe that civil
institutions should do more than just offer advice to governments; they should act
as defenders of a different concept of democracy. In addition to political bodies
trying to shape the public sphere with a monopolistic approach, refusing to share
the public sphere and regarding politics as a power that should determine all levels
of society, some civil institutions act merely as political extensions, accepting
political patronage and distorting society with the power they obtain from the official
sphere. This perpetuates the system and thus aggravates the problem. As a consequence,
a clear differentiation between the roles of state and society is obstructed.
 We have
to comprehend that the polarization between institutions in civil society does not
merely concern those parties involved. It is evident that we are confronted with
a problem that concerns the very presence of the institutions of civil society in
the public sphere.
Closed relations keep
the functions of civil institutions totally under the management of official structures.
The struggle for power prevents civil society from raising its voice and makes it
part and parcel of political society. The loser in this struggle for distribution
is civil society itself, not the parties who play by the rules of the game. It is
therefore essential to start out with civil society, for it is not the state, but
civil society itself which will determine the roles of state and society. The present
climate of communication is paving the way for society to establish horizontal relations
based on fields of interest and not through the mediation of official structures.
Likewise in Turkey,
the Forum of Institutions of Civil Society, and the Host Committee of Institutions
of Civil Society which were formed to promote other activities during the Forum are
noticeable for promoting the need for civil society to organize within its own sphere.
For the first time in Turkey, a horizontal relationship has been realized instead
of gatherings based on vertical relations. Members of civil organizations, from many
persuasions, have the opportunity to meet and come together in a caucus based on
fields of interest. Civil institutions which cannot imagine a true civil structure,
having been involved with political organizations in the past, organize horizontally
for the first time, whatever their opinions, field of interest or method of operation.
They will be engaged in an activity which will show those institutions which persist
in old practices, and prevent civil society from organizing its own sphere, that
the civil is distinct from the political. I believe that all of us have something
to learn from these efforts that are unprecedented in Turkey and are of upmost importance
for democracy.
Korhan Gümüş
Member of The Habitat II Host Committee
|
|
