“Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser.”
“Trust is good, control is better.”

This saying, attributed to Lenin, still maintains its importance for public administration today: Trust is not an alternative to oversight; it is its complement.

Recent allegations concerning the Ahbap Association that have been reflected in the public, ongoing investigations, and judicial processes have created an intense debate in society. While investigations are ongoing, it is not right to accept allegations that have not yet been finalized by a court decision as true. However, this process brings a more fundamental question back to the agenda:

Has state oversight been implemented sufficiently, timely, and effectively?

The real issue that needs to be discussed is not why citizens trust an institution. Because people assume that a visible entity, whose activities are known and operates within a legal framework, has undergone the necessary inspections by the state. It is not the citizen's duty to conduct financial audits. This duty belongs to state institutions acting on behalf of the public.

This situation is not limited to the Ahbap Association alone. All associations, foundations, companies, cooperatives, and entities interacting with the public operating in Turkey must be regularly, impartially, and effectively audited as prescribed by law. This is a fundamental requirement of being a state of law.

Today, two different approaches stand out in the public. On one hand, Ahbap supporters are criticized due to positive evaluations made in the past; on the other hand, Ahbap critics are taking a harsher stance based on the emerging allegations. However, the focus of the discussion should be the system, not individuals or emotional positions.

Because strong democracies are built not on trust in individuals, but on institutional oversight.

If state oversight has been carried out regularly and effectively, its results should be transparently shared with the public. If not, the reasons for this should be explained. If, despite audits being conducted, the problems alleged today are emerging, then the effectiveness of the audit mechanisms should be questioned; any negligence should be uncovered, and the necessary processes should be initiated against those responsible.

At this point, not only national but also international audit examples offer an important basis for comparison.

For example, in the European Union, civil society organizations and funded projects are regularly audited by the European Court of Auditors, and reports are published publicly. This way, both the use of funds becomes transparent and public trust is strengthened.

Similarly, independent internal audit units and external auditors also operate within humanitarian aid programs under the United Nations.

Organizations like UNDP and UNICEF regularly present their expenditures and the impact of project outcomes to the public through independent reports. These practices are not only about financial control but also part of a culture of accountability.

In the US, foundations and civil society organizations, especially those with tax-exempt status, are subject to IRS (Internal Revenue Service) audits and are required to publicly share their annual financial reports.

In the UK, the Charity Commission regularly audits the financial transparency and operational compliance of all charitable organizations and imposes sanctions for violations.

These examples show that strong civil society structures endure not merely through good intentions, but through robust and transparent oversight mechanisms.

The concept of independent oversight

In addition to audits conducted by public institutions, independent financial audit reports and transparency practices are elements that strengthen public trust. As information sharing increases, rumors decrease, and verifiable data replaces speculation.

What will ease the public conscience is not social media debates or political polemics, but the functioning of the law and the transparent operation of oversight mechanisms.

What should be done today?

● State oversight processes should be strengthened and standardized for all civil society structures.

● Transparency and regular reporting requirements should be increased for all associations and foundations, including Ahbap.

● Audit results should be shared with the public in a clear and understandable manner.

● Both Ahbap supporters and Ahbap critics should focus on the legal process and the need for institutional reform, rather than emotional polarization.

● If there are any possible negligence or irregularities, these should be addressed by judicial and oversight mechanisms independently of political debates.

In conclusion:

What will re-establish public trust is not declaring any institution innocent or guilty beforehand. Nor is it dividing into supporters and opponents. What makes trust lasting is accountability, transparency, and effective oversight.

In a democratic state of law, trust gains meaning only with oversight.

Let's hope for the best.