Roberto Esposito: Political prisoners would have to be released first 

2020-04-09 13:13:19


	ANKARA- Biopolitics has always been directed to prisons, said Italian philosopher Roberto Esposito, commenting on our question on the agenda of prisons of Turkey. And he added, "If a kind of amnesty or a certain emptying of prisons were to be used, these people, political prisoners, would have to be released first, rather than ordinary criminals".

	After Georgio Agamben and Jean-Luc Nancy, contemporary Italian thinker Roberto Esposito joined in the discussion regarding the coronavirus in the context of bio-politics. Esposito stated that the most disturbing part of the entanglement of biological life and politics during the coronavirus process is that democratic countries started to show authoritarian tendencies. In this process, where prisons are at great risk, noting that biopolitics always turns to prisons as Michel Foucault has already shown the evidence for, Esposito answered the questions of the Mesopotamian Agency (MA).

	 

	You wrote about a disturbing drift on how "political procedures of democratic regimes drifts into conformity with those of authoritarian states, such as China." Can this coronavirus crisis- where the harsh measures normally dedicated to totalitarianism are highly applied, yet the virus could not be stopped-  may also be a beginning to break the bonds of totalitarianism to adopt bio-politics to control over social bodies? 

	 

	
		 Certainly, situations like the ones we are experiencing, with the explosion of the coronavirus, push all political regimes towards a centralization of decisions.


	I have written that, because of the speed of decisions to be taken in the event of a pandemic, even democratic governments, such as the Italian one, are forced to adopt exceptional measures that give the government, or also the head of government, special powers that tend to exceed the normal legislative powers of Parliament. This happens not because of the will of a sovereign will, but because of a state of necessity. As the jurists say "necessity knows no law", in the sense that, in certain circumstances, it makes the law itself. By this I do not mean that democratic regimes are equal or even approach authoritarian or even totalitarian regimes. There is always a fundamental distinction. In democratic regimes even the state of emergency proclaimed by the government requires to be legitimized by parliament, as it has happened in Italy. Certainly, situations like the ones we are experiencing, with the explosion of the coronavirus, push all political regimes towards a centralization of decisions. The important thing is the duration of the state of emergency after which the normal state is restored.

	 

	There are many practices of bio-politics in prisons, how do you evaluate the application of bio-politics on the bodies of prisoners? Here is the opening for this question to be more clear with a solid example: Erdoğan government (AKP) and their nationalist coalition party (MHP)  passed a new regulation on execution law just so special for coronavirus, requiring some prisoners to be released. Here is the thing: political prisoners are excluded. There around 10 thousand political prisoners, among them political activists, Kurdish freedom and peace activists, lawyers, writers, journalists and many other democracy and peace supporters from the opposition etc.  How do you evaluate this approach of the government on prisoners?

	 

	Biopolitics has always turned to prisons and prisoners, as evidenced by Foucault's early works starting with “Discipline and Punihsment”. Control and punishment are indeed the original gestures of bio-power, from which all the others descend. I don't know the Turkish situation except for general lines. In a democratic rule of law there should be no political prisoners - activists, writers, lawyers. I suppose they have been convicted for activities against the state. In the meantime, we should understand how the trials were conducted, with what guarantees for the accused. In any case, if a kind of amnesty or a certain emptying of prisons were to be used, these people, political prisoners, would have to be released first, rather than ordinary criminals.

	 

	
		If a kind of amnesty or a certain emptying of prisons were to be used, these people, political prisoners, would have to be released first, rather than ordinary criminals.


	"Due to the coronavirus, you are not allowed to gather for your health!": This was the police announce, when they were attacking with tear gas to the participants of funeral of recently lost hunger strike resistor, Helin Bölek. She lost her life last week in the 288th day of her death fast. Within the light of this example, how would you evaluate this approach of the governments to translate the concepts like "health, life, security" so much so that any human rights violation is legalized under the discourse of these three concepts? 

	 

	Using a public health standard to achieve a political purpose - in this case prohibiting a particularly significant funeral - is a type of bio-political measure. The whole of bio-politics makes use of medicine, according to a dynamic that began as early as the nineteenth century and is becoming increasingly more and more powerful. In case you describe me, there is the intention to use a social distancing rule, adopted today in almost all the states of the world, to prevent an event that can turn into a manifestation against the government. In this case, we are talking about the embodiment of a health device within a political device, making a medical procedure a political procedure aimed at a specific purpose.

	 

	Especially, during the coronavirus emergency state, "national health" has become synonymous with "national security" and the metaphore of "war" and “unvisible enemy” is benefited much by the leaders of the nation-states. However, it is a matter of controversy that nation states are unable to find solutions to problems such as migration or destruction on ecology. While people are worried about going to a global authoritarian process in the virus process, is there an opportunity for the world to take a more ecological, more fair, more solidarity course? For example, can formations such as “unity of communities” and “unity of peoples” be established on a global and democratic basis? What would be the alternative of nation states and authoritarian regimes for you?

	 

	Politics has always used metaphors drawn from the language of war. Right wing theorists such as Carl Schmitt, overturning a formula of the Prussian strategist Von Clausewitz, argued that all politics is a form of war that requires an enemy to associate with. Also in biology - for example in the description of the immune system - war metaphors are often used, as Susan Sontag critically noted. This leads to the use of the coronavirus in an authoritarian sense. The name of the virus itself, which references to the “corona”, seems to define it in sovereign terms. Instead, the current crisis, like all crises, can also be used in the opposite direction. As an opportunity to initiate democratic and communitarian practices - at least when the risk of contagion loosens and social activities can be resumed.

	 

	You mention the "medicalization of politics and politicization of medicine". Is there a potential of alternative public health and medical measures to break this bio-policy cycle? How would you evaluate the future possibility to create a “counter-bio-politics” with non-state, self-governmental and autonomous communities?

	 

	
		As for self-governing communities, we need to understand how to articulate them to existing political forms.


	I personally believe in the possibility of an affirmative biopolitics, not on life but of life. Even in the field of medicine. For example, by freeing the use of life-saving medicines from the cost imposed by pharmaceutical companies and patent holders. I do not believe, however, that an affirmative bio-politics must include the end of states - of all states - and a regime of anarchy. There are democratic states, which do not necessarily oppose the affirmative use of bio-politics. As for self-governing communities, we need to understand how to articulate them to existing political forms. However the situation is obviously different in different states.

	 

	We now live in the era of “maintaining social distance”, the famous phrase. If this process continues further, how will social protests and opposition organizations respond to that? Naom Chomsky said, “Now we are in a real social isolation. It can only be overcome by rebuilding social ties in all possible ways. ” What are your thoughts and suggestions on this matter?

	 

	Right now, with this interview, we are already operating a form of social activity, albeit from a distance. After all, the use of social media has increased a lot in recent weeks. It is an important resource, not least because it is difficult for governments - whether democratic or authoritarian - to block it. From this point of view, globalization, which has been hit hard by the virus, cannot go back. Of course, social media cannot replace live meetings and even political demonstrations. Living bodies are essential to politics and also to communal life. However, for a communal life to resume, it will be necessary to wait for the pincer of the contagion to loosen. But one can already prepare and organize its recovery.

	 

	MA / Eylül Deniz Yaşar