The Dilemma and Prudence of the Nation-State Structure

Dear Readers,

An individual may find a decision made in another country to be wrong. They may defend people they believe have been wronged and express their reaction openly. This is part of their freedom of thought and expression. However, when the same words come from the mouth of a state official, they are no longer heard merely as a personal opinion. The office of the speaker also speaks.

What I am advocating here is not that state officials should remain silent in the face of injustices in other countries. Respecting a state's independence does not mean endorsing all its practices. However, it is also important from which office, with what language, and for what purpose a justified criticism is expressed. Because a statement made on behalf of a state can affect not only the speaker but also the relations between two countries.

The discussions in Azerbaijan regarding veiled students reminded me of this distinction. The headscarf and the right to education are, of course, important issues in themselves. But there is another aspect to this discussion. How should individuals responsible for governing their own country behave when speaking about the decisions of another state? To answer this question, we need to take a closer look at the world of nation-states we live in.

From the World of Kings to the World of Nations

Today, on the world map, we see states with borders, flags, and capitals. This appearance seems very natural to us. Yet, in the past, the right to govern vast regions of the world was considered to belong to kings, emperors, and dynasties. People were subjects of a ruler before they were equal citizens of a country. The answer to the question of who owned the state was also different from today.

The French Revolution of 1789 profoundly shook this understanding. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, published in the same year, declared that the source of sovereignty was the nation. Of course, this change did not begin in a day and was not completed in a day. However, the idea that the right to govern a country could not belong solely to one family gradually strengthened.

The establishment of political unity in Italy and Germany in the nineteenth century, the desire of different peoples for their own states, and the encounter of great empires with nationalist movements were important steps in this change. After the First World War, empires such as the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires vanished into history. The fundamental idea upon which the state was based gradually shifted from a dynasty's right to rule to a nation's right to self-governance.

After the Second World War, the wave of independence spread to Asia and Africa. As colonial administrations ended one after another, new states emerged. Later, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, other states were added to the world map. The independence of Eritrea and South Sudan, and Palestine's gaining observer state status in the United Nations in 2012, were also different examples of this long historical process.

I see this long period, which gained great momentum with the French Revolution, as the era of nation-states. The internet, global trade, and international organizations have brought the world closer together. But borders, citizenship, flags, and states' desire to make their own decisions have not disappeared. The world is changing, but the issue of independence and sovereignty retains its importance.

Living in the Same Country Does Not Mean Being Identical

When nation-states were established, one of the primary goals of their leaders was to create a common identity. People were expected to speak the same language, learn the same history, and see themselves as part of the same nation. Schools, military service, state institutions, and laws played an important role in establishing this idea. In some countries, the religion and culture of the majority were also placed at the center of the common identity.

However, the reality of societies did not always conform to this expectation. People living within the same borders spoke different languages, held different beliefs, and came from different backgrounds. Some states tried to unite this diversity with a common understanding of citizenship. Others suppressed differences, considering them a threat. Thus, the methods used to achieve unity sometimes became the cause of new divisions and unrest.

Yet, for a country to be strong, everyone does not need to be alike. Countries where different languages coexist, like Switzerland, demonstrate this. The real issue is for people to feel equal and secure within the same legal order. People who are not identical can still be wholeheartedly devoted to the same country.

In my opinion, good governance begins here. The state's duty is not to force everyone into the same mold, but to enable different people to live together with equal rights. A government that makes its own citizens feel excluded cannot be considered to have established solid peace internally, no matter how strong it appears externally.

Protecting One's Interests Is One Thing, Dominating Another Is Another

Every state has responsibilities first and foremost to its own country. It must ensure security, manage the economy, protect justice, and safeguard the rights of its citizens. The ability of people to look to the future with confidence is one of the fundamental measures of state governance. Without internal security and peace, it is not easy to achieve lasting success externally.

In addition, states want to protect and develop their interests in the outside world. They strive to increase trade, reach new markets, meet energy needs, and have a say in international decisions. This desire is not unique to large states. Small states also want to be more effective and powerful within their means.

Here, an important distinction needs to be made. A country increasing its trade, establishing cooperation with its neighbors, or strengthening its prestige in the world is not imperialism. The problem arises when this desire turns into an ambition to control the resources of other countries, to coercively change their decisions, and to restrict their ability to act independently. Cooperation and the desire to subjugate are not the same thing.

In the past, when one spoke of dominating another country, military occupation often came to mind. Today, however, the same goal can be pursued through different means. Making a country economically dependent, controlling its important resources, or directing its internal politics from outside can also be tools for establishing superiority. Of course, not every investment, every agreement, and every diplomatic initiative can be evaluated in this way. What needs to be examined is whether the relationship is based on mutual benefit or on one party subjugating the other.

Where Does the Real Dilemma Begin?

A state both governing its own country and developing its external interests is not a contradiction in itself. These are the natural responsibilities of being a state. The contradiction begins when a state that desires independence for itself attempts to coercively direct the independent decisions of another country. The real issue is when it denies to others the rights it claims for itself.

Let's consider a state. It says it wants to make its own decisions regarding its education system, economic preferences, and social life. When it faces external pressure, it reminds others of its sovereignty. But when another country is concerned, it does not show the same sensitivity and imposes the decisions it desires. Here, a clear inconsistency emerges.

It is also incorrect to seek this attitude only in large and powerful states. Smaller states can also try to exert pressure on their neighbors when circumstances permit. The method and degree of this vary. Not every state can be said to be imperialist. However, the tendency to limit the independence of others while protecting one's own independence can be observed in different countries.

Moreover, the balance of power in the world does not remain static. A country considered weak today may become more influential tomorrow thanks to energy resources, trade routes, or new friendships. A state that is powerful today may also fall into economic difficulties or political isolation. Therefore, a good leader does not act solely by looking at their current power. They consider that the measure they apply to others today might be applied to their own country tomorrow.

Viewing the Azerbaijan Discussion Through This Lens

I am not establishing this broad framework to label every dispute between countries as imperialism. Not every harsh statement is an attempt to dominate another state. The Azerbaijan example is noteworthy more for demonstrating the responsibility of speaking on behalf of a state and the importance of sovereignty sensitivity even among friendly countries.

Azerbaijan is an independent and secular state. It is the duty of its state institutions to determine its own education system and rules regarding school uniforms. However, this authority does not negate the responsibility to comply with human rights and international conventions to which it is a party. Independence does not mean that every decision of a state is beyond question.

Although the regulation on school uniforms did not explicitly mention the headscarf, it was reported that some veiled students and teachers were not admitted to schools in practice. For this reason, reactions arose regarding the obstruction of the right to education. We can certainly question a child being excluded from education because of their clothing. To criticize such a practice, we do not need to reject Azerbaijan's independence or its secular state structure.

The harsh statement by Presidential Chief Advisor Oktay Saral in Turkey on the issue brought another aspect of the matter to the agenda. Not every word of an advisor is an official foreign policy decision of the Republic of Turkey. However, statements by individuals in positions close to the highest offices of the state are not heard like the words of an ordinary citizen. The opposing country may see more than a personal opinion in those words.

This is the point I want to emphasize. A state official has the right to criticize, but the office they hold also magnifies the responsibility of their words. Believing oneself to be right does not make every language used appropriate. If the purpose of criticism is to contribute to solving a problem, then it should also be considered whether the chosen words serve this purpose.

The historical and cultural proximity between Turkey and Azerbaijan does not diminish this responsibility. No matter how close the two countries are, they are separate states. Friendship is not one deciding for the other. On the contrary, it requires being able to speak with awareness of each other's sensitivities and resolving disagreements without harming relations.

We should also consider how we would respond tomorrow if similar words to those we direct at another country today were directed at Turkey. However, the issue is not merely the concern that "Others will criticize us too." The real issue is consistency. We must show to others the respect for sovereignty that we desire for ourselves, and we must consider the standard we uphold for human rights to be valid for everyone, not just for some countries.

Governing a State Means Thinking About the Aftermath of Words

Criticizing the practice of another state is not, by itself, an unlawful interference in its internal affairs. Human rights cannot be considered a matter of importance only within the borders of one country. It is necessary to maintain the distinction between criticism and coercive intervention. The problem arises when criticism turns into a threat and an attempt to force decisions upon the opposing state.

However, in state governance, it is not enough to look only at what is not forbidden. The fact that a word can be spoken does not mean that it is useful in every situation. Sometimes it is necessary to speak openly in public. Sometimes direct talks between officials of the two countries yield better results. Sometimes the issue is addressed in international institutions.

The important thing is to find the right path without abandoning the value being defended. Speaking louder is not always more effective. A harsh statement may relieve the speaker but may further complicate the problem they want to solve. A state official must also consider how their words will be heard by the other side.

This is what I mean by prudence in state governance. Prudence is not just seeing today, but also thinking about the consequences that today's actions will bring tomorrow. It is not making a random choice between silence and speech. It is being able to weigh when, with what language, and by what means more accurate results will be obtained.

Peace at Home, Peace in the World

I do not see Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's saying "Peace at home, peace in the world" merely as a beautiful wish for peace. In my opinion, this saying is also a fundamental assessment by a statesman who established a nation-state, on how these structures should be governed and how they should relate to each other. In this respect, it is a principle that can guide not only Turkey but all countries that wish to coexist with other states while preserving their own independence.

Because establishing a state is not just about drawing borders, raising a flag, and forming a government. It is also necessary to ensure that the people living within those borders believe in a common future. Similarly, it is important to secure the country's future not by constantly conflicting with external states, but by developing relations based on mutual respect. I read this maxim as a concise expression of these two great responsibilities that follow the establishment of a state.

"Peace at home" reminds us of the responsibility to solve the problems of our own society with law, justice, and mutual understanding. The peace here should be understood not as a silence where everyone is quiet, but as an order where everyone feels equal and secure. "Peace in the world" requires recognizing the right to independence and sovereignty that we desire for ourselves for other states as well. While learning to live with different people internally, we must also be able to establish relations with different states externally on the basis of equality and respect.

This is precisely where the nation-state dilemma I have been discussing throughout the article meets this saying. A state that demands respect for its own independence cannot disregard the independence of others. A government that wants to protect the peace of its own people should not make disturbing the peace of other societies a normal political method. From this perspective, "Peace at home, peace in the world" should be considered a principle of governance that reminds the nation-state that it must set limits on its own power and pursuit of interests.

Of course, desiring peace does not mean ignoring dangers or abandoning the defense of national interests. Showing respect for the independence of other states also does not require remaining silent in the face of injustices. Being resolute when necessary and avoiding unnecessary tensions are not contradictory behaviors. True prudence is not disregarding the rights of others while defending one's own rights, and not opening the door to a bigger problem while opposing a wrong.

States will continue to protect their interests and strive to be more influential in the world. However, preventing this desire from turning into an ambition to pressure others is one of the fundamental responsibilities of good governance. The greatness of a state is seen not only in the power it possesses but also in its knowledge of when and how to use that power.

An individual can speak with their conscience. A state official, however, must place the future of their country alongside their conscience. This does not mean silencing their conscience, but not forgetting the public responsibility that their words carry. Because sometimes an entire nation pays the price for a thoughtless step taken by a state official.

Mücahit Özden Hun