Siyaset ve Sermayenin Baskısı, Mesleki İlkeler ve Belediyelerde Çalışan Plancılar

Abstract

Türkiye’de şehir plancıları farklı mekânsal ölçeklere ilişkin bütüncül ve parçacıl tüm planların hazırlanması, bu süreçlerde bilimsel analizler, şehircilik ilkeleri ve kamu yararına göre karar vermeye ilişkin temel değerleri ve yeterlilikleri içeren mesleki formasyonla mezun olurlar. Ancak plancılar belediyelerde çalışmaya başladıklarında mesleki değerleri ile politik karar vericilerin demokratik meşruluğu arasındaki ikilemlerle karşı karşıya kalırlar. Araştırmaya göre belediyelerde planlama sürecinde siyaset ile sermaye, siyaset ile vatandaş ve hatta siyaset ile kamu kurumları arasındaki kentsel rant ilişkileri belirleyicidir. Türkiye’de belediyede çalışan plancılardan, büyük bir çoğunluğu rant odaklı olan plan değişiklikleri ve diğer parçacıl planlara ilişkin teklifleri değerlendirmesi ya da hazırlaması beklenmektedir. Belediyelerde çalışan plancılara göre planlamaya ilişkin kararların alınması noktasında plancının etkisi çok sınırlıdır. Planlara ilişkin kararlar teknik ve bilimsel analizlerden ziyade rant odaklı alınmakta, rant ilişkilerini ise siyaset ile sermaye arasında ya da siyaset ile vatandaş arasında geliştirilen patronaj ya da siyasi kayırmacılık ilişkileri belirlemektedir. Belediyelerin sermaye ve yerel halkın baskılarına açık olması plancılar üzerinde büyük baskı yaratmaktadır. Belediyede çalışan plancının görevi siyaset ve sermaye ya da siyaset ile vatandaş arasındaki ilişkiler sonucu alınan kararların teknik olarak çizilmesi ve mevzuatın açığını bularak mevzuata uydurulması olarak görülmektedir. Planların onama aşamasında plancıların söz sahibi olmaması, siyasetçinin kendi fikirlerini plancıların bilimsel yöntemler ve teknik analizler üzerinden geliştirdiği görüşlerden daha üstte görmesi plancıları sık sık meslek ilkeleri ve kamu yararı adına mücadele etmek durumunda bırakmaktadır

Until the early 1980s, the authority to make, approve and implement plans in Turkey was in the hands of central institutions. However, parallel to the increase in the effectiveness of neoliberal policies after 1980, the planning system was reorganized, and local governments were given the authority to plan, approve and implement plans by Law No. 3194. The arguments that decentralization of powers in planning will lead to democratization by increasing the efficiency of the local created a great expectation in the public and professional circles at the beginning. However, the real estate-oriented urban growth model of neoliberal policies, clientalism and political populism, which are among the most important phenomena of the Turkey’s urbanization, and the lack of financial and technical powers of municipalities to use planning powers have revealed a different image away from these expectations. Practices contrary to the principles of urbanism and public interest have become widespread in municipalities. This study focuses on the roles of the planner in the planning processes experienced in the municipalities of Turkey, the relations the planner established with other actors and the problem areas he encountered. It aims to analyze the planning experiences of city planners working in municipalities, one of the most important institutions of urban planning. This article is set as a part of a large research project funded by the MSGSÜ Scientific Research Project, which aims to analyze the plan experiences of public sector planners. The project focuses on the working conditions of planners working in municipalities, the techniques they use in the planning process and the problems they encounter. The field study started with the examination of the Professional Audit Practice data for all the works carried out in Turkey between 2003 and 2018. In the second stage, quantitative data on the total city planners working in municipalities in Turkey were collected, and the reports of the Chamber of Urban Planners for planners working in the public sector were examined. In the third stage, an online survey was conducted for planners working in municipalities in Turkey. According to the study of the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization in 2016, there are a total of 1528 city planners working in municipalities. 15% of city planners (233 city planners) working in municipalities have been reached. In the following stage, 8 in-depth interviews were conducted with experienced planners working in the municipality. Urban planners in Turkey graduate with a professional formation that includes the preparation of holistic and fragmented plans for different spatial scales, scientific analyzes in these processes, basic values and qualifications related to urbanism principles and decision-making according to the public interest. However, when planners start working in municipalities, they face dilemmas between their professional values and the democratic legitimacy of political decision makers. According to the research, the relations between politics and capital, politics and citizens, and even between politics and public institutions are determinative in the planning process in municipalities. With the neoliberal urbanization policies implemented for the last forty years, urban rents have become the most important area of accumulation, and all social segments, especially large capital groups, have sought to get a share from the rent created on the land. Especially after 2000, with the construction sector being seen as the engine of the economy, the pressure on the cities increased more. As a result of all these pressures, the spatial planning system has become scattered with fragmented planning approaches. Throughout the period, the most common work done by planners in municipalities was fragmented plans such as plan changes and additional development plans. Planners working in the municipality are expected to evaluate or prepare proposals for plan changes and other fragmentary plans, most of which are rent-oriented, and holistic plans for cities are carried out by self-employed planning offices. The influence of the planner is very limited at the point of making decisions regarding planning according to the planners working in the municipalities. Decisions on plans are made with rent-focused rather than technical and scientific analysis, and the rent relations are determined by patronage or political favoritism developed between politics and capital, or between politics and citizens. The fact that the municipalities are open to the pressure of the capital and local people, the increase of decisiveness of politics and rent on planning, the rent-oriented approach is dominant instead of the public benefit, the continuity of the plans due to the changing administrations, the increase of chaos in terms of scale and authority in planning creates great pressure