A RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO DEEM THE REPUBLIC TOO MUCH FOR THIS GEOGRAPHY

“Tom Barrack’s statements carry the traces of an old mindset that sees the peoples of the Middle East not as the subjects of democratic republics, but as communities that must be kept under strong central authorities. Yet the last century of the region has shown that one-man regimes have brought neither peace, nor prosperity, nor stability. What this geography needs is not the worn-out authoritarian molds of the past, but a new vision of the future based on popular sovereignty, strong institutions, and democratic republics.”

THE MENTALITY OF THOMAS JOSEPH BARRACK JR.

The language Tom Barrack has used recently must be read carefully in Türkiye and in our region. Because the issue is not merely a few sentences uttered by an ambassador. The real issue is the mentality behind those sentences.

The framework Barrack builds around the Ottoman millet system, strong leadership, and forms of governance supposedly unique to the region, even if not stated openly, feeds the following perception: Türkiye and the peoples of the Middle East are seen not as equal citizens within modern democratic republics, but as communities that need to be governed under strong central authorities.

Yet my article published on April 16, 2026, titled “ON THE THRESHOLD OF A NEW AGE: STRATEGIC AWAKENING AND DEMOCRATIC UNITY IN EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST,” was precisely an objection to this understanding. There I wrote:

“For the awakening of the region, dynasties and dictatorships must be replaced by Democratic Republics based on the will of the people.”

Today, it is clear why this sentence has become even more important. Because Barrack’s language evokes not the strengthening of popular sovereignty, but the legitimization of strong centers in the name of governability. In countries based on strong institutions, an independent judiciary, an effective parliament, and an established republican culture, foreign intervention is more difficult. But in structures where decisions are concentrated in the hands of a few people, it becomes easier for foreign powers to pursue their objectives through a narrow circle.

That is why the following sentence from the same article must be remembered once again today:

“Republican culture and democratic maturity are the only true guarantees of security, both for investors and for human dignity.”

Indeed, the foundation of security, prosperity, and stability is not palaces, dynasties, or foreign-backed strongmen. The real guarantee is institutions based on law, equal citizenship, and democratic legitimacy.

THOSE WHO TRY TO DESIGN REGIMES FOR US SHOULD FIRST LOOK AT THEIR OWN HISTORY

Those who attempt to design regimes for us should first look at their own history. Those who destroyed the lands, lives, and futures of Indigenous peoples on their own continent; those who dehumanized millions through the system of slavery; and those who then built a superpower upon all these great injustices have no standing to lecture other nations on statecraft or regimes.

When one looks at the record of those who today preach democracy, freedom, and human rights to the world, one sees the elimination of Indigenous peoples, wealth built on slave labor, racial segregation, foreign interventions, and countless double standards. For those carrying such a heavy historical burden to speak to Türkiye or the peoples of the Middle East with the air of “this is the most suitable form of government for you” is not only political arrogance, but also a profound moral inconsistency.

Therefore, the issue is not only what Barrack says. The issue is also the historical and political ground from which he speaks. A representative of a power that has not fully established equality in its own country and has not completely healed its own internal wounds cannot act as an arbiter over what kind of regime other societies deserve.

HOW COMPETENT IS HE IN THE FIELD HE SPEAKS ABOUT?

There is another issue here as well. In terms of his career path, Barrack is not a constitutional lawyer, political theorist, or historian. He is primarily a figure who comes from the line of business, finance, investment, and political proximity, and who was later appointed to a diplomatic post.

The pages of the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Embassy in Türkiye also introduce him first as the founder of “Colony Capital,” established in 1991, and as a private equity executive.

Colony Capital, which became DigitalBridge in 2021, is an organization founded by Tom Barrack, whose origins lie in real estate-focused private equity and investment management. In the simplest terms, it is not a single construction company in the classical sense, but rather an investment platform that raises capital, acquires assets, manages them, restructures them when necessary, and seeks to generate returns from them.

Such a background does not grant the competence to pass judgments on a country’s regime, founding philosophy, or historical state mind. What he speaks of is merely the imposition of matters that may provide commercial advantage.

An ambassador conducts relations on behalf of the state he represents. He is not sent to direct the regime of the host country, question its constitutional preferences, or propose a historical model to it. Diplomatic status grants the authority to represent. It does not grant the authority to exercise tutelage.

No ambassador holds the office of passing judgment on the regime of the country in which he serves. International law grants diplomats the authority to represent, not the authority to exercise guardianship. Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations makes non-interference in the internal affairs of the host state an explicit obligation. Despite this, speaking from above about Türkiye’s constitutional order and republican regime is not diplomacy. It is political arrogance that crosses the line.

BORDERS DRAWN WITH A RULER AND THE DEAD END OF ONE-MAN REGIMES

Many states in the Middle Eastern geography were shaped not by the natural historical and social development of peoples, but largely by the legacy of foreign interventions, mandate systems, and borders drawn with a ruler. Yet what is even more important is the nature of the political regimes built upon this structure.

A very large part of the region has been governed since its foundation not by strong republican institutions based on popular sovereignty, but by coups, dynasties, security states, and one-man-centered approaches to governance. Decades have passed, leaders have changed, alliances have dissolved and been reestablished, but the system has not changed. What has often changed is merely the names, and among which internal and external circles the wealth belonging to the peoples of the region has changed hands.

When we look at Barrack’s career background, what appears before us is not so much a diplomatic state mind, but a profile emerging from investment, private equity, real estate, and international business circles. This strengthens the impression that in his view of the region, he prioritizes geopolitical stability, economic opening, and governable power centers that will work in harmony with external actors rather than democratic legitimacy.

This is exactly why the strong central authority model implied by Barrack is deeply problematic. Because this is not a new prescription for the Middle East. On the contrary, it is another name for the old disease from which the region has long suffered. One-man regimes have not brought lasting prosperity, freedom, or justice to this region. Presenting the same worn-out model again as if it were a solution is to speak not to the future, but to the past.

For this reason, the following sentence from my previously published article is even more meaningful today:

“For the awakening of the region, dynasties and dictatorships must be replaced by Democratic Republics based on the will of the people.”

Because what the Middle East needs is not to replace one strongman with another strongman. What it needs is to break free from fragile orders tied to individuals and to reach a political ground based on rules, institutions, law, equal citizenship, and accountable governance.

THE MESSAGE DELIVERED THROUGH THE OTTOMAN MILLET SYSTEM

Barrack’s references to the Ottoman millet system are also problematic in this respect. The Ottoman millet system was not a democratic model based on equal citizenship in the modern sense. It was a hierarchical imperial order in which religious communities were governed separately and which rested upon the authority of the sultan. Presenting such a system as a source of inspiration for today’s Türkiye or the Middle East is a sign of a perspective that keeps its distance from the idea of the republic.

What we need, however, is not to carry the hierarchies of the past into the present, but to build the democratic unity of the future. That is why, in my previously published article, I made the following observation:

“The intervention of an overseas power in the region in line with its own interests” and “the resolution of regional problems by the actors of this region themselves.”

The Barrack debate has made these sentences even more visible. Because many minds looking at the region from the outside do not see this geography as a community of peoples that need to be liberated, but as a geopolitical chessboard that must be balanced. When viewed this way, what gains importance is not democracy, but control; not the republic, but governability; not popular sovereignty, but central authority.

EUROPE, TÜRKİYE, AND REGIONAL DEMOCRATIC WILL

Yet the true historical task before Europe and the Middle East is this: to grow democratic cooperation based on regional will, not authoritarian equations shaped by external guidance.

For this reason, the following approach I used in the same article is even more important today:

“The EU and Türkiye should join hands to form a peace shield that will prevent the destructive interventions of ‘third countries.’”

This is not merely a diplomatic proposal. It is also a regime preference. The new relationship to be built between Europe and the Middle East must rise not on the axis of strongmen, but on the basis of strong institutions, the rule of law, technological independence, and popular sovereignty.

Indeed, another important section of my article emphasized exactly this:

“To break its technological dependence on the United States, the EU has launched a struggle for digital sovereignty through projects such as ‘Euro-Office’ and ‘GAIA-X.’”

Technological sovereignty and political sovereignty are not separate from each other. Societies that leave their defense, data, software, security, and strategic direction to others eventually become dependent not only economically, but also in terms of political thought. Likewise, the following observation is much more meaningful today:

“Relying on U.S. protection in matters of security has created a ‘strategic blindness’ that has caused Europe to fall behind in technological and military R&D.”

Those who entrust their defense to others, after a while, become vulnerable to external influence not only in their security preferences, but also in their political imagination. That is why what Europe, Türkiye, and the region need is not new dependencies, but a new democratic strategic mind.

THE DESTINY OF THIS GEOGRAPHY IS NOT AUTHORITARIANISM

My view is clear. Türkiye and the peoples of the Middle East deserve the republic, secularism, equal citizenship, and democratic maturity. The problem of this geography is not that it is unfit for democracy. The problem is that it has long been trapped among foreign interventions, internal tutelages, dynasties, and regimes of fear.

For this reason, the following sentence is not only an idea today, but a historical call:

“A Middle East that becomes conscious through education, prosperous through industry, and free through democracy will be Europe’s safest neighbor.”

This is the real issue. The old mindset sensed in Barrack’s implications wants to see the region as a space governed by strongmen, framed from the outside, and made to accept historical hierarchies. The future we must defend is the exact opposite: a regional future strengthened by education, made independent through technology, developed through industry, and dignified through the republic.

CONCLUSION: A NEW POLITICAL MORALITY AGAINST THE OLD MINDSET

Barrack’s words have shown us once again that there are still those who speak about our region with old imperial minds, old habits of tutelage, and old geopolitical arrogance.

The most correct answer to them is this:

First, confront your own history.First, complete the moral accounting of your own country.First, look at the great gap between your claim to democracy and your historical record.Only then attempt to come and tell other nations what kind of regime they deserve.

But the destiny of this geography can no longer be written from the outside.

Türkiye, Europe, and the peoples of the Middle East now have a new choice before them: the easy path of strongmen, or the difficult but honorable path of democratic republics?

My answer is clear: The future of our region lies not in dynasties, but in democratic republics. The path to peace lies not in foreign intervention, but in regional will. The real guarantee lies not in authoritarian centers, but in republican culture and democratic maturity.

Until we meet in my next article, I wish you well.