Authority and Accountability Issues at Turkey's Ministry of Trade!

From time to time, in my writings I point out the functioning of public institutions, the sluggishness of central bureaucracy, and the application problems faced by citizens.

Today I want to focus on the issue of the bureaucratic guardianship approach increasingly felt in the Ministry of Trade's provincial structure, a matter in which I am personally involved and often a victim.

Bureaucratic guardianship is not just the concentration of authority at the center. It is the narrowing of provincial public officials' decision‑making and initiative‑taking powers, forcing them to seek Ankara's opinion or approval even on the simplest matters.

I believe this approach should be questioned, especially because of the centralizing mindset and bureaucratic sluggishness I have encountered in the Kocaeli Provincial Trade Directorate, where I have worked for the past three years.

In short: if a citizen or shopkeeper keeps receiving the same answer while waiting for a solution from the directorate in their province, and everything is referred to the ministry, it means there is a serious problem here:

"We need to get Ankara's opinion on this, we have no authority, the Ministry is responsible…"

I have heard this answer very often in the last three years.

So, then shouldn't we ask why the rural organizations exist?

Are provincial directorates merely units that receive and send documents, handle correspondence, and wait for a response from Ankara?

Of course, in matters where the legislation is unclear, different interpretations are needed, or nationwide consistency is required, the Ministry’s opinion can be sought. No one will object to that. However, moving every issue to the center, leaving every decision to Ankara, and local managers avoiding the use of initiative is a different matter.

This is not called coordination; it is an understanding of bureaucratic guardianship.

However, a particular point needs to be emphasized here. The issue is not that every provincial directorate should impose penalties independently on every matter. Of course, competence must be defined by law and exercised in accordance with the regulations.

Indeed, Article 78 of the Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers also enables the Ministry to delegate its administrative sanction authority to Provincial Trade Directorates in remote areas. This regulation demonstrates that provincial organizations can play a more effective role in decision-making in remote areas.

Accordingly, the problem is not only where the competent person is deployed, but also how extensively remote-area organizations participate in decision-making processes and how well-informed they are about the outcomes of their responsibilities.

On another matter, complainants are often responded to as follows:

As a result of the investigation, administrative sanctions have been imposed against the relevant party.

Well, what kind of sanction?

Which provision of legislation was found to constitute a violation, which law and article was applied, and how the complaint case was concluded?

What is the type and amount of the applied sanction?

Why are these details not communicated to the citizen in a clear and understandable manner?

The result of the investigation carried out on the citizen, the legal basis of the identified irregularity, and the sanction information that can be explained must be communicated in a clear, understandable, and justified manner.

Transparency is exactly what we mean by that.

In state governance, responsibility is as important as authority.

If you give the provincial governor duties and responsibilities, you must also grant them the authority to fulfill that duty.

Imposing responsibility without delegating authority is nothing more than turning a manager into a mere signing clerk.

Citizens are paying the price for this mindset. Work drags on, time is wasted, and the problems of artisans and businesses grow. The circulation of a file from desk to desk and repeated correspondence on the same issue add no time savings for either the citizen or the state. Moreover, the workload of public institutions unnecessarily increases.

In contrast, rural agencies are the units that know the needs and problems of their region most closely. They must exercise the authority granted to them by law and take responsibility when making decisions.

Of course every transaction must comply with the law, serve the public interest, and be accountable when necessary. However, one must not conflate legal compliance with lack of initiative.

The ministries' role is not to make every decision themselves, but to establish a system that allows rural agencies to make sound decisions within the legal framework. Provincial directorates must also stand behind the authority granted to them and should not shy away from taking responsibility.

Because state administration is not about delegating a job to a higher office.

This is our open call to the Ministry of Trade:

In matters permitted by law, especially concerning exorbitant prices, hand over decision‑making and enforcement powers to the countryside.

Do not merely assign duties to provincial governors; also grant them the authority to execute them.

Put an end to the bureaucracy that complicates citizens' work instead of simplifying it.

We want a rural institution that solves problems on the ground, not one that waits for directives from Ankara.

Provincial governors should not shy away from taking responsibility, and the Ministry should also clear the path for them.

Because the citizen's expectation is not more correspondence, but a faster solution; not more bureaucracy, but a public administration that knows its job and takes responsibility.

Greetings and best regards.