In my previous article, Towards an Ideal State: The Philosophy, we explored the theoretical foundation of continuous changes in state systems. This article explores specific possibilities to translate those theoretical aspects into practice at the technical level. It is, therefore, important to have read the first article of this series in order to fully understand the subject matter of the following analysis.
“A state’s decadency correlates with the dysfunction between its theoretical state framework and the technical approach. As long as money and power shape the foundation of a nation and its state, decadency is a natural outcome once a state reaches a certain level where the investments in furthering those goals are too costly for the society to bear. Without further development, a nation will continually long for change whenever frustration rises within this framework.”
As one of the conclusions, we highlighted the dangers of decadency. Decadency in state systems is deeply connected to the fundamental structures of money and power. These structures are relative and need some kind of measurement to become valuable, leading to a limitation of productivity and even developing a destructive character. Decadency reverses the development of a nation, as the focus shifts from productivity and the connection with a natural purpose to excessive consumption and intensification of bad habits. Preventing a state from falling into decadency must be highly prioritised by a nation, as the consequences would cause a serious crisis, as exemplified in the case study from the previous analysis. A downward trend of frustration will shape the mental state of a nation, mostly resulting in changes at the technical level. As we found out, changes at the technical level, without adapting the foundation, will not lead to a lasting state structure providing stability or productivity. Going further in the conceptual hierarchy would necessarily mean developing a new framework on which the different technical approaches could be based.
Requirements for a new fundamental level
Fundamental changes require extended consciousness within a society and acceptance of hard times for a short time period in order to create better ones. Times will be hard because of the emerging friction a nation will be confronted with the moment it begins to address its own weaknesses. Changing the state structures from a weak starting point A to an ideal approach B necessarily costs a lot of energy and, therefore, creates physical and mental friction. The greater the disparity between points A and B is, the more energy is needed to overcome the difference, logically leading to more friction within this process. The primal weakness is the relative goalsetting. As mentioned, our current framework is based on money and power, governmental decisions and their policymaking are aiming to achieve either one of these. In a more valuable context, creating better times will not mean maximising money and power but pursuing an absolute goal. An absolute goal would be equal to a natural purpose, as the motivation to achieve this goal is inherently intrinsic. While relative goals only exist in artificial structures, absolute ones would still exist without structural guidelines, revealing that relative goals are self-limiting and absolute ones will not have a limitation in their achievement. Absolute goalsetting furthermore validates the existence of an objective truth, which is the core point of orientation in finding an ideal framework.
Besides its absolute nature, the fundamental level must preserve a state structure aiming for productivity. A structural framework that does not aim for productivity would have the same disadvantages as decadent states. The philosophical theory of good and bad is a general foundation when we talk about human nature based on the objective truth. Only doing good would be an absolute goal with intrinsic motivation, but a society based on this behaviour would not prioritise productivity. Eventually, this would once again strengthen feelings of frustration, which would increase the susceptibility of the state structure.
A New Framework: Devletism
Devletism is the school of genuine knowledge production, providing an ideal approach for the fundamental level. The development of each citizen’s special trait is the absolute goal, based on the existence of an objective truth, going hand in hand with the inherent purpose of our existence. Logically there cannot be any goal closer to each citizen’s nature, naturally leading to productivity. Currently, knowledge production is rather a side effect of capitalistic engagement or an internal drive of performance-driven individuals than a product of structural goalsetting. Therefore, we cannot claim the achieved progress as genuine knowledge production. Just as the good carries its purpose within itself, productivity and progress need not be tied to the institutions of money and power but carry their purpose within themselves. The aspect of intrinsic motivation is crucial in order to endure the friction that will be released for every citizen and the entire nation. The friction will only arise in the context of the structural shift, as once provided, the pursuit of everyone’s special trait is our natural fulfilment. This leads to two aspects we must highlight: The great discrepancy between the points of development A and B; and the superior role of fulfilment.
As mentioned above, decadency will intensify a nation’s bad habits, particularly those related to consumption. Consumption is the result of a money (and power) orientated state structure and the opposite of genuine knowledge production. The absolute goal of genuine knowledge production naturally stands higher hierarchically due to its conceptual independence, but it also comprises an extent of friction of overcoming current structures to establish a Devlet state that could not be any higher. Now, including Essydo’s Hierarchy of Happiness in our analysis, we can understand the self-destroying character of consumption more comprehensively. As genuine knowledge production is the highest goal a nation and its citizens could aim for, the natural result is the highest form of happiness: fulfilment. Being in line with our natural purpose and getting closer to the objective truth will let us feel fulfilled. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, this aligns with achieving the highest level: self-realisation. Now that consumption is contrary to genuine knowledge production, the higher the consumption is, the further we move away from the highest form of happiness, encouraging the downward trend of frustration.
A devletist state would precisely provide a fundament that encourages structures based on genuine knowledge production. It is important to highlight that implementing according to structures is necessary in order to overcome the friction. It is not sufficient to simply rhetorically approve the idea, as it is now, because of the contrast to the current structures and the resulting friction. As the devletist state structure is based on the outcome of each citizen’s fulfilment, finding and developing this is the most crucial aspect. Therefore, the education system is the most important pillar of devletist policymaking, as deeply structured in the eponymous book of Emre Şentürk. In general, the education system must preserve a structure that is: 1. in harmony with the stages of growing up; 2. a training camp for the acquisition of existing knowledge; 3. producing new knowledge related to the individual special trait. Once the majority of a society developed its special traits, the society as a whole would be closer to a natural outcome. We must highlight that yet we cannot analyse the physical outcome of this state as it will be a spontaneous order, which we are going to analyse later in this article. Besides the primary pillar of education, the rest of the governmental cornerstones are not irrelevant but must be analysed at the technical level, logically following the devletist framework.
Devlet: Technical Requirements
Besides the framework, the technical approach must align with the nature of Devletism and preserve a consistent implementation of devletist principles. Next to the education system especially political elections and the government formation, as well as the economic system must be improved and adapted to the devletist framework. The political structures must reduce the chances of corruption and the emergence of concentrated and unchecked power to a minimum, obviously calculating the flaws arising from human nature. Therefore, influence within a society must be driven by valuable achievements rather than the sole representation of individual or organisational interests. To gain power within current state structures, the institutions of political parties are forced to represent the interests of several subgroups instead of improving society as a whole. Citizens are then forced to limit their ideas of development, as they are bound to support the subgroup closest to their ideologies. Gaining power then becomes a fight between ideologies (e.g., social policy, economics), developing radical tendencies, again, denying genuine knowledge production. Furthermore, to gain power, these organised subgroups will continuously try to manipulate public opinion in their interest. Connected to a structure additionally based on financial capital will allow these subgroups to use further instruments to achieve their goals, for example by influencing media outlets to shape the public perception. Avoiding this would only be possible by a change to the current government formation.
The economic system is resulting in the underlined main weakness: consumption. As money is the most important pillar of current structures, the economy is heading towards quantity instead of quality. Maximising profits leads to power and status. At a certain level, when the costs for increasing productivity are more expensive than cost reduction, businesses must reduce the quality of their products or find another way to decrease the expenses. Next to decreasing the quality of their products, as a physical form decreasing quality of knowledge production, companies could fall for unethical methods of cost-saving. Again, this is a vicious cycle, as increasing consumption leads to increasing production, and both result in a decrease in the quality of knowledge production. Further, this economic system leads to status and influence gained through financial capital. Instead, in order to align with Devletism, we must establish an economic system rewarding companies focusing on the quality of their goods. In the current system, this would be able through subsidies, but this would just enhance the profit-oriented economic system. We could establish a rewarding system based on quality to gain status within society; for example, political influence. While these are just two main characteristics that the technical approach must align with, in Devlet, you will find the entire approach detailed and well-structured.
Thoughts at the Technical Level
Devlet is a framework that, theoretically, cannot be perverted, as it is an absolute philosophical approach aligned with human nature. Therefore, technically, every state structure would be able to achieve productivity and genuine knowledge production. Furthermore, in the previous article, we concluded that the technical approach results from the safeguarding of the general survival, culture and history of a nation – or, in short, the mental state of a nation. This means that different technical approaches will be more successful in different nations, and furthermore, the technical approach can evolve over time. This will improve productivity as long as it occurs within a devletist framework. However, we must still account for the challenges posed by human nature. Consequently, we should direct our thoughts towards an ideal technical approach, even if this ideal is primarily intended for the implementation of a devletist foundation. We must keep in mind that implementing a new framework introduces more friction than adopting a new technical approach. Thus, a technical approach that aligns with the ideas of Devletism could serve as a crucial first step towards establishing the new framework.
Spontaneous order is one of the key components of modern liberalism, deeply rooted in devletist principles. Spontaneous order refers to an outcome driven by unpredictable variables, consistently leading to something greater than what organised planning can achieve, as planning is limited by the perspectives of its architects. Devletism thrives on this spontaneous order, where the unfolding of special traits naturally creates an order that is inherently of natural origin. This type of order, however, is never subject to planning. For this reason, autocratic systems are not suited for the introduction of a devletist state. Autocratic systems rely on the leadership of a single leader or a small power circle and are therefore dependent on their centralised planning. This reliance on planning is in conflict with the
spontaneous order that Devletism advocates. In the case study of Towards and Ideal State: The Philosophy, the dictatorship in Germany is one example of a highly planned autocratic system, but we also look at practical communism as another example. Communism is based on the flawed ideal of equality, assuming that all people are equal in ability, talent, willpower, drive and other mental and physical attributes. Therefore, communist states seek to achieve equal conditions and, ideally, equal outcomes through coercion. As a result of this sheer misconception, states would be forced into unequal policymaking in order to create more similar conditions for still unequal individuals, leading to an output totally restricted. In fact, practical communism is the purely technical variant of communism, operating within existing power and financial structures. Like other autocratic forms of government, it results in a small power circle that executes the planning of the state. Consequently, a technical approach based on liberalism is clearly preferable to an autocratic and thus to a communist state structure.
The Technical Approach: Liberalism
Instead of contemporary interpretations often associated with ‘woke’ ideology, liberalism must be used in its classical sense within social theory. Classic liberalism serves as a cornerstone of philosophical ideals, representing an absolute goal that fulfils itself. But unlike Devletism, liberalism does not link to productivity, which is necessary to develop an ideal foundation. Within the current framework, it is evident that liberal systems, by fostering highly driven individuals, achieve the most effective outcomes. Therefore, within a devletist state, a liberal government and policymaking would lead to the most productive outcome possible.
A comprehensive analysis of all the complexities within liberalism would exceed the scope of this article. Rather, we focus on the most critical aspects that must be implemented on the technical level to ensure an ideal fit within a devletist state. The most crucial aspect is the above-mentioned reliance on a spontaneous order. Adam Smith was the first to make the concept of a spontaneous order widely acceptable, introducing it through the idea of an invisible hand. He describes it as a concept within liberal systems that individual actions, without central planning, lead to an efficient and productive outcome. Primarily important in economic theory, this concept was gaining more and more relevance in social theory. Friedrich August von Hayek, an Austrian-British economist and philosopher, developed the principles of a spontaneous order within social theories and claimed it as the key characteristic of complex societies.
The highest level of productivity can, therefore, only be achieved when citizens are maximally free in their decisions. As shown above, current structures lead to the characteristic negative habits of systems dominated by money and power. Therefore, classic liberals, including Hayek, advocate for the transformation of current state systems (technical level). This includes, for example, reshaping lawmaking and abolishing the structure of political parties, thus eliminating interest-driven and corruptible politics. These liberal changes, at a technical level, are already deeply anchored in the devletist framework.
Furthermore, this goes hand in hand with the analysis from Emre Şentürk, that interest-driven politics lead to more radical tendencies. In terms of spontaneous order, this would mean that any disruption in such a societal construct, which is ultimately a natural result, can only be ideologically justified. Social policy, therefore, is nothing more than an intervention in a spontaneous order, aiming to create equal conditions and results in an unequal society based on the false ideology of equality. This leads to another core thesis of classical liberalism: that justice can only originate from human actions. In a spontaneous order, where no institution can predict the outcome, the outcomes cannot be just or unjust. Political intervention, in one direction or another, often to the disadvantage of some participants, can be deemed just or unjust. This would describe the principle of equality solely before the law, in contrast to communist and socialist approaches. We must note that in current structures, this results in increasing money and power, while in a devletist state, it could provide the best approach to optimal productivity.
A liberal approach, therefore, complements a devletist foundation optimally. A liberal economy without state interference offers the evolution of a spontaneous order from which unknown progress can be achieved. Since genuine knowledge production is the highest goal, profit maximisation and power expansion are irrelevant to gain social status within society; the economy is characterised by quality and societal progress. Liberalism also achieves the highest level of productivity in society and politics because progress, rather than power, is focused. Political parties are redundant, as the progress of the entire society is prioritised, not the power of subgroups. The most crucial pillar in a devletist system is also promoted by a liberal approach: the education system. Prioritising individual performance within a framework that values genuine knowledge production as its highest good develops an education system that must emphasise the acquisition of each citizen’s special trait. It must be essential for a liberal government because it is the only way to maintain a spontaneous order, as the rulers have no interest in ideologically directing politics; their only ideological stance is the idea of self-realisation, or in terms of the framework of Devlet: The society achieves fulfilment.
Concluding Thoughts
All that we know today as reality were once distant ideals brought to reality by a few courageous enough to dream them into existence. Such is this approach for an ideal state, where the vision must mature until society is ready to embrace and bring it to life. Once established in a system, the path of evolving is sheer endless, as the progress will lead to completely different conditions nobody can predict now. However, the successful implementation of this approach ultimately depends on one factor: the collective will and ever-expanding consciousness of each individual citizen. Exactly this will be explored in depth in the final analysis of this three-part series.
