In this column, we have often tried to say something about voter preferences and the ways in which politicians influence these preferences. Last week, we tried to explain that the main motivation affecting voter preferences could not be economic expectations or the economic damage caused by the crisis. We have stated that the main effect is the sense of belonging that arises from cultural differences. We can expand on this issue a little more.
Where sections of the public position themselves against the state also determines the course of politics. If he feels excluded, he is expected to take an attitude against the political stance of the current government. On the other hand, if he does not feel excluded, on the contrary, if the sense of belonging prevails, he adopts an attitude that supports the political stance of the current government. The important thing is how the feeling of being excluded and the sense of belonging emerge.
In our opinion, the measure is determined by the chance of accessing the state's means. If a person sees himself as more advantageous in accessing the services provided by the state due to the power of the government's use of state apparatuses, the sense of belonging will prevail, and if he does not see it as more advantageous, the feeling of exclusion will prevail. This exclusion or belonging will determine the political preferences of the voters.
The issue is again based on the issue we discussed last week. We said last week that there is no right proportion between the feeling of exclusion and poverty, the feeling of belonging and wealth. The separation over cultural differences determines political preferences. And the political will, which is the addressee of these preferences, produces politics in line with this separation.
To put it more clearly, the political will uses its power stemming from the administration of the state in favor of the sociological base that prefers itself. This increases the chance of those who share the same sociological base with the government to benefit from the opportunities of the state. It is important for them not only to benefit financially, but also culturally to make that sociological base visible to the state with its own existence. This is the truth that lies at the root of the discourse of gain in recent years.
It would not be a correct approach to think that most of the sociological base close to the political will benefit from the opportunities of the state. Maybe, although it is a small group of those who benefit greatly from these opportunities, this situation can turn into a means of satisfaction for all of them. In our opinion, the criterion here is that this opportunity can exist as long as they are there, rather than benefiting from the benefits of being in power.
This expectation enables the person to establish a sense of belonging with the political will and naturally with the state. From this point on, it doesn't matter whether people are poor or rich, a worker or a boss. Even if the people are rich, even if the political will does not have a negative attitude towards them in their economic life, the fact that the cultural basin remains in the background in the public sphere will reveal the feeling of exclusion.
This sense of belonging and the feeling of being excluded is the main factor that determines the success or failure of politicians. In other words, what is meant by success is the belief that the political will, which he feels close to his sociological base, is represented there by the discourse and actions, rather than the data such as justice, welfare, blessings and burdens.