The main guidelines of the neoliberal policies (an economic philosophy that advocates for free markets, deregulation, and privatization) dictated by the Global North to developing countries consist of three primary elements. Firstly, they focus on providing consumption goods rather than developing domestic productive capabilities. Secondly, these policies encourage the purchase of consumption goods from the Global North, as most are produced there. Thirdly, they advocate for minimizing the public sector's role in the global economy and privatizing all assets, enabling foreign capital to acquire and control formerly publicly owned companies. Furthermore, global subsidies are often structured to transfer local production capabilities to foreign companies, purportedly to generate local wealth. Additionally, these policies emphasize the exploitation of untouched natural resources, such as mines, with the assistance of foreign capital.
In this context, Turkey has served as a practical laboratory for these neoliberal policies over the past two decades. During this period, almost 90% of functional and successful public brands have been privatized. These were subsequently sold either to foreign capital or to local capital groups deemed incompetent and closely affiliated with the government. While we oppose this trend, it does not imply an advocacy for a 100% state-controlled economy. Instead, private enterprises should justify their existence through efficiency, higher quality output, or reduced production costs, thereby demonstrating rationality. However, in Turkey's experience, these privatizations did not result in improved quality, reduced costs, or any other beneficial operational criteria; rather, they amounted to little more than a transfer of public assets to private entities.
The individual depicted, who served as the finance minister overseeing the privatization process, presided over the sale of numerous public institutions. Although these institutions may appear in small print on a list, each held significant strategic importance in the economy, including entities such as Türk Telekom, steel and iron mills, aluminum factories, ports, and airports. These privatizations have yielded no positive outcomes; for instance, the privatized Türk Telekom is known to operate with a substantial budget deficit. Furthermore, some institutions were closed down post-privatization, while others were transformed into unproductive entities such as shopping malls and luxury residential construction sites. As another example, Turkey's paper production factory named SEKA has been closed down. Consequently, Turkey now imports most of its paper needs, leading to increased paper prices and undermining the nation's entire printed publishing sector, including newspapers and books. Ultimately, the privatization agency under the Ministry of Finance was closed, as there was nothing left to privatize.
Regarding agriculture, Turkey has historically been recognized as a fertile and agriculturally self-sufficient country. Throughout history, it has served as a cradle of agricultural civilizations, from ancient times through the Ottoman Empire. Even today, the Turkish people proudly assert that their country experiences all four distinct seasons simultaneously. Turkey is capable of producing almost any agricultural product on its land, with the exception of certain exotic fruits and vegetables. Until the 1980s, Turkey was a successful exporter of agricultural products. However, these neoliberal policies have systematically dismantled Turkey's agricultural sector through the following measures. Firstly, credit support to producers was critically diminished, and the prices of basic necessities such as fuel oil and fertilizers skyrocketed, particularly after 2013, influenced by policies dictated by the World Bank. Secondly, subsidies were provided to farmers in exchange for ceasing their agricultural production. Farmers were effectively placed on a "petrol list" by the government and the World Bank. These policies rendered agricultural production unattractive, leading to a total shrinkage of active arable land by up to 15%. Historically, Turkish tobacco and Turkish cotton were renowned agricultural products; currently, there is no production of these crops. Consequently, Turkey has ceased to be a center for agricultural production and has become a significant importer. The country now imports most of the agricultural products it once exported, including cereals, fruits, vegetables, meat, and even horse hay.
Mining has emerged as a central focus of neoliberal policies, despite its significant negative impact on the environment and agriculture. Prior to the neoliberal era, stringent regulations were in place for granting mining permits. These permits were subject to strict public control and limited in number; however, the mining sector was subsequently liberalized and extensively opened to both foreign and national capital. In a single year, 9,949 mining production permits (not prospecting permits) were issued to local and foreign companies. The government aims to offset the loss of wealth with income from mining, a policy that has resulted in the perforation of the fertile Anatolian land with numerous mining holes. This policy has, predictably, led to the inevitable destruction of the environment and agricultural lands. At most mining sites, farmers are forcibly prevented by police from accessing their fields to facilitate mining operations. A gold mining disaster occurred in İliç (formerly known as Erzincan) involving a Canadian-Turkish joint venture, which began with a landslide of processed soil, causing the deaths of multiple workers. Most critically, there is a risk of cyanide leakage from the contaminated soil into the waters of the Great Euphrates River.
This tragic economic decline in Turkey and the Global South would not have been possible without the deliberate commitment of the incumbent government to the devastating and unpopular neoliberal policies of the Global North. This leads to the critical proposition that sustainable economic development in the Global South is, above all, a political problem. Therefore, we must define the minimal and reasonable political prerequisites for sustainable development: a political power closely linked to popular forces and their organizations is essential. This necessitates a government composed of workers, farmers, white-collar intelligentsia, small and medium producers, and artisans, characterized by openness and accountability. The decisions of such a progressive government should be open to public feedback and control. All forms of behind-the-scenes agreements are a probable source of corruption and, therefore, lead to failure.
Given our time constraints, we will not present a detailed scheme or formula for sustainable development. However, we would like to discuss two problems committed in the past by some progressive governments. The first mistake was strict economic nationalism and 100% nationalization. The idea of nationalizing and seizing foreign capital, and completely closing frontiers to all foreign capital, was a romantic ideal of the 1970s. This approach led to failure because developing countries clearly require foreign capital to revitalize their economies. The absence of investment capital within the country inevitably leads to economic slowdown and shortages. We are not advocating for full openness to foreign capital, but rather for its reasonable utilization. While full openness and complete restriction of foreign capital represent two extremes, every country has the right and duty to preserve and defend its national economic assets and resources. Therefore, a balanced approach must be found to guide foreign capital according to the following criteria. We can identify four main criteria for this situation. First, to utilize foreign capital for the production of goods that would otherwise be impossible to produce, or for the production of essential commodities. Second, to negotiate robustly for the equitable transfer of profits generated by foreign capital. Third, to simultaneously promote local brands and enable their coexistence with foreign brands. Finally, to make concerted efforts to absorb new foreign technologies and strive to develop them locally. All these objectives and criteria necessitate a strong, progressive government — a political power characterized by dedication and commitment to the interests of the people.
A second mistake is so-called "export activism," which renders a country's position in the world economy solely dependent on the export of raw materials. A developing country may possess significant reserves of natural resources, such as minerals, oil, or raw agricultural products. This presents an opportunity to be leveraged for the country's benefit. However, if a country's capacity to generate wealth is confined to the export of these materials, this strategy becomes fragile for two primary reasons. Firstly, the international market prices of raw materials are subject to fluctuations due to numerous unpredictable factors. Secondly, the production of raw agricultural products is universally dependent on local climate conditions, meaning a poor crop season can lead to economic disaster for the country. An alternative approach is to secure a guaranteed position in the global market with competitive and value-added products, encompassing all industrial sectors, information technologies, and logistics, to achieve this industrial capability. A comprehensive national strategy should be established. Regarding infrastructure, the importance of roads, railways, and port projects should not be underestimated. However, the most critical component of infrastructure is a robust education system, coupled with strong research and development capabilities, as human capital represents the most vital asset. A strong, modern education system is the most significant leverage for a developing economy.
It is evident that such a development strategy will not be welcomed by the Global North, potentially leading to trade restrictions. Sanctions and embargoes are also potential threats for a progressive, popular, and patriotic government. However, the world is not solely composed of the Global North, and the multipolar character of the contemporary global landscape presents a crucial opportunity that must be fully leveraged. I conclude with a profound quote from the revolutionary leader, Chairman Mao Zedong: "Who are our friends and who are our enemies?" This is the most critical question of the struggle. In our context, our friends include progressive and socialist governments and countries such as China and Vietnam; nations managed by progressive social governments, like Venezuela or Brazil; and countries truly independent from the Global North, such as Russia, India, and Iran.
(Transcribed from recording and edited.)