A Rip in the Sea - Bülent Eczacıbaşı

AÇ

Which is a more modern way of giving. The other is much more parochial – you help people in your neighborhood, and they know you as a nice person “who helps everyone.” And you reap the benefits. If we wish to transition into a modern form of charity, or a philanthropic era, we need to break free of these networks. Our country has the money, but where does it go? To solve local issues. A more global perspective is necessary. I’d like to give an example: There was an earthquake in Indonesia, and the Sumatran province of Aceh was hit by a tsunami. You’ll remember our prime minister’s call: “It is the duty of every altruist to help those in need.” Those calls for help fell on deaf ears.

Very limited aid was sent from Turkey, and why? Because people think, “Why should I help Indonesia? It’s better to give money to a neighbor, the concierge, or perhaps a colleague.” In effect, this local aid aims to maintain the hierarchy. What is required, however, is a competent organization that has a global vision and responds to the neediest. That’s where Turkey falls short, rather than in resources.

BE

How do you evaluate the relationship between NGOs and business? How much of a role did the private sector have in the founding of Turkey’s civil society or “third sector”? It looks considerable from where we sit, given how involved our companies have been and continue to be with NGOs. The foundations and societies we support are part of our daily life at work, as are our relationships with them, their activities, and the ways we ensure they have support. Has business really played a major role in the rise of the third sector? How did this relationship develop over the years, and is it a healthy one, or not? Frankly, I have no dependable information beyond my personal impression. What are your views on this subject?

IÖ

I would say, yes, business has played a role, but it’s not enough. The Habitat II conference in 1996 and the years following the 1999 earthquakes can be considered milestones in the private sector’s contribution to civil society in Turkey.

The private sector played a leading role in the founding of certain organizations, which then established or inspired the establishment of other organizations. But I don’t think these are enough for a society with so many problems, so many layers. As you pointed out earlier, NGOs can only flourish in a democratic environment where they can function freely. Which is a chicken-and-egg situation again. Civil society needs to develop so that democratic demands can emerge and be debated in public. Democracy needs to develop in order to guarantee the rights of civil society and ensure all freedoms: freedom of assembly, speech, and association. It takes courage, but this vicious circle has to be broken somewhere. The private sector acted quite bravely up to a point, as I said earlier. Present conditions are a little different from the 1990s and 2000s: There’s a horrific degree of polarization now. Everything has an ideological dimension. All the same, if we don’t take on the challenge, if it doesn’t get done, then the future of democracy itself will be in jeopardy.

You want to know how engaged we think businesspeople are in social issues. I think the examples are far too few: a few civil society initiatives, a handful of reports by the private sector, and attempts to identify the problems that need solving. That’s the extent of it. I don’t think there’s much of an effort for businesses to take the next step in solving the identified problems. Perhaps it’s less to do with awareness and more to do with concern and even fear about their own future and interests. We’ve seen that companies’ financial interests can be compromised. Tax inspectors can knock on the door.

AÇ

There’s this concept of membership in an örgüt, an organization.

IÖ

It’s hard enough taking an interest in civil society in Turkey or belonging to any sort of organization. The Turkish word örgüt is heavily charged, as it’s frequently used in the sense of “terror organization.” Is the desire in Turkey to set up one’s own foundation a healthy tendency, or does it stem from the perennial issue of lack of trust in our society? I firmly believe it’s the latter. Another cause is the inability of business people to associate their own future, their company’s future, and even their family’s future with the future of this society. Every issue we’ve faced in how our country is governed demonstrates that the business world and its NGO initiatives should do more to engage with democracy. Just publishing reports isn’t going to work. And it requires more than a single dimension; it’s something that must be done at multiple levels in a variety of layers with an array of tools.

BE

You said this tendency to establish our own foundations stems from a lack of trust. What happens next? A fragmented structure emerges. Different companies establish different foundations in one area and none of them has sufficient experience or capacity; none of them attains a critical mass in resources.

IÖ

I’ve looked into what the business world does in several other countries with similar income levels to Turkey’s. Chile has a foundation called Fundación Chile. It was founded by 67 businesses and is a very specific institution with its own mission and vision. It says that it is going to focus on education, on developing skills, and on raising generations capable of innovation in order to raise the global competitiveness of Chilean businesses and of the country as a whole. There are other examples in Uruguay, Argentina, and, of course, Europe.

Fundación Chile’s first step was to examine the education issue comprehensively. It saw that focusing on private education wasn’t enough, that education in state schools had to improve as well. Subsequently, Chile’s PISA scores have shown a marked improvement. It’s an interesting example. In short, there’s an awful lot the business world can do, but this fragmented and competitive structure you refer to could prove to be a serious impediment.

BE

It seems to me that in Turkey government has a lot of power over NGOs, perhaps even more than it has over businesses. So, NGOs are constrained by concerns over a falling out with government; they want to maintain cordial relations and, if possible, to benefit from public resources. Here, it’s worth noting that we erroneously include in our definition of civil society a good number of semi-official bodies that wield considerable authority. The Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey (TOBB) and the countless chambers under its roof are all non-governmental organizations established by law. They have enormous authority and financial means, but they are semi-official institutions, which means it’s impossible for them to function as you’ve described. You can’t expect them to lead the way. Voluntary institutions have similar problems: They’re either beholden or apprehensive.

The reality is that NGOs are in the government’s orbit. And the state naturally seeks to keep them under control. Since these organizations cater to a specific membership, interaction is with a captive audience and impact is limited.

AÇ

In the 1990s, civil society was much more active than it is today. There was vigorous debate over Turkey’s constitution, perhaps because Turkish Business and Industry Association (TÜSİAD) kept it high on the agenda but also because quite a lot of change was going on at the time. The Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) was involved in highly impactful studies on topics like corruption. The real reason for the silence of civil society now is the political environment. Sitting and waiting can hardly bring about change, though. In such an environment, it might make sense to support civil society more openly after determining which values are worth the risk.

This might not be something that business can do, but at least it could offer support by advocating an environment where civil society can flourish. Of course, businesspeople can’t be expected to risk their entire commercial activity just to join a society or an association and of course it’s easy for me to say that the business world should support this or that. However, if civil society does something and the business world remains indifferent, that’s much more serious in my view. At the very least, business should avoid remaining indifferent. I think it’s natural to expect that some business leaders would take this risk.

BE

We could take Turkey’s Economic and Social Council as an example, an initiative TÜSİAD put a good deal of effort into, and which I was involved in. TÜSİAD has a problem: It has tremendous authority in terms of the manufacturing, employment, and export power it represents, but it only has a few hundred members. And among these members, only a handful of leading companies are quite visible. So it might seem Turkish Business and Industry Association (TÜSİAD) has no real authority, but that’s not true; its manufacturing power gives it considerable authority. Moreover, the present fragmented structure of the business world doesn’t allow us to establish the broad platform you suggest. To be honest, politicians don’t really want us to establish it either. They’re probably saying, “If business wants us to ask their opinion, we’re already doing it. They come over, we even offer them coffee, we chat. We know their ideas anyway; they’re obvious from their publications and speeches.”

However, when the EU forced us to establish this platform, and people here saw that it was an accepted mechanism in the EU, there was a bit more acceptance. The Economic and Social Council was created, by law, and held nine meetings, I think. It hasn’t been able to convene since.