TPMCafe
« The power of the purse and the future of America's security | Home | Gaza: The Disengagement that Didn't Take »

"An astonishing irony" in Turkey!

user-pic

As much as I appreciate Steven Cook's four points that summarize the basic messages of RBNG, I find the book's analysis especially valuable in the passages that deal with the EU reforms in Turkey. The desire to become a full member of the EU not only has resulted in a major --albeit incomplete-- uprooting of authoritarian laws and structures in the country, but also serves as a catalyst for the world to see who/what is modern in Turkey now. As Cook told me in a recent interview, "This is not your grandfather's Turkey." In an irony of history, the forces that are in the forefront of Westernization in today's Turkey come from among the religious masses of Anatolia, while many among the Western-looking secularist elite of the big cities are nostalgic for the modernism of 1920s and not ready to accept what it means to be modern and Western today.

I am just back from a trip to Istanbul where I had the chance to chat with politicians, candidates for parliament and journalists, with different takes on the Ak Party government. Some of them blamed AK for the crisis over the election of the new president: "The Prime Minister," they said, "overplayed his hand. He should have sought consensus, nominated a benign figure and avoided confrontation with the military." Others pointed out that the thousands of people demonstrating against AK had genuine fears that a headscarved First Lady would be a major step in what they perceived as the gradual Islamization of Turkey: "Whether these fears are unfounded or not is beside the point. It is up to AK to erase these fears." Others, still, believed the developments to be the inevitable stages of the power struggle in the country: "Turkey is a sick man that is slowly getting better," said an astute democrat, "Every now and then there is a relapse, but the overall prognosis remains good."

Yet, it was striking how very few people were overtly supportive of what the military had done on April 27, namely the issuing of an e-memorandum that included a thinly-veiled coup threat. Within Turkey's political classes, more and more people seemed to realize what Cook calls "the astonishing irony" -- that the Turkish military no more seemed to be the vanguard of modernization and Westernization in Turkey.

Ak Party has been the locomotive of the EU reforms for over four years. Under EU's guidance, the leaders of AK did more to limit the military's role in the political system than any other elected government in the country's history. The military, on the other hand, has been alternatingly acquiescent and resistant to the reforms. Lately, Turkey's top generals have become more vocal in their criticism of the EU's positions vis a vis the civil-military relations and the Kurdish question in Turkey. Also, they never accepted to remain fully outside the political discourse and decision-making process. The generals continued to speak on a wide range of issues including Northern Iraq, Cyprus, Armenia, genocide resolutions, secularism, Orhan Pamuk, etc.

When the military issued its e-memorandum on April 27, the leaders of AK became the first-ever Turkish politicians to reject such a move and publicly remind the military that the Chief of Staff worked for and was accountable to the Prime Minister. The EU, for its part, was quick to criticize the military.

Even among the secularists who protested against AK in several mass rallies recently, voices were heard against a military intervention. The overwhelming message, however, was not a democratic one, as the official speakers of those rallies, for the most part, supported the military's role in politics. They also criticized the ties with the EU, the US, and globalization in general. Although many in the eclectic crowd might have disagreed, the message from the microphone was one of an inward-looking, nationalistic, and even militaristic mindset.

As the cameras captured a sea of red--of Turkish flags and red t-shirts--thousands of secular Turkish women expressed their fear that some day the Islamists might tell them to cover their heads. The fact that, at that very moment, there were millions of Turkish women whose right to higher education was denied because they donned headscarves did not seem to matter. The demonstrators believed themselves to be, in the words of one speaker who took the microphone at several rallies, "the modern, civilized face of Turkey." The implicit dehumanization of the other--the pious, the headscarved--did not bother the crowd. Neither the democratic and pluralistic nature of modern politics nor the freedoms that are the base of today's Western society and the rule of law that protects those freedoms seemed to register with the speakers at the rallies. For them being modern and Western seemed to be merely a lifestyle and a dresscode. An authoritarian regime could be modern and Western as long as it remained untainted by Islam.

But the subscribers of this ideology are diminishing in number in Turkey. In the Anatolian cities and among the newly-urbanized segments of society, more and more people welcome and participate in the economic boost resulting from globalization and the EU process. Pious Turkish women are no longer low-profile, stay-at home types, but have become politically and socially active under the AK government. While their visibility is perceived as a threat by narrow-minded secularists, that visibility is the result of a modern --and Western-- demand to participate. The headscarf, while it remains a symbol of "backwardness" for those secularists who do not think beyond the official definitions of 1920s, is in fact an item of modernity for it enables the woman to go out of her house and socialize.

In RBNG, in the chapter entitled "Turkish Paradox," Cook provides an astute analysis of the political superstructure that has been slowly but surely transforming against a background of social change in Turkey.

"For the Islamists," Cook writes, "to supplant the officers as the perceived agents of Westernization would not only represent an astonishing irony but also risk a breach with the majority of Turks who overwhelmingly support the political reforms Europe demands. The result would be a significant diminution of the prestige of the officer corps, which would simultaneously enhance that of the civilian leadership, rendering it more difficult for the officers to act autonomously, influence the political arena, or defend the political order."

I could not agree more.


8 Comments

| Leave a comment

It seems to me that one of the major things that has always confused analyses of Turkey is the attempts to make it fit into more global categories of 'secular' vs. 'religious' and 'modernist' vs. 'anti-modernist', etc., as if these have anything like the same value that they have in 'Western' europe and the United States. So called modern Turkey is, and this must be remembered, the result of a post-ottoman nationalism that is really a radically different animal than either 'Arab-nationalism' or the more familiar 'western' nationalisms that gave rise to the great majority of modern European nation-states since the 16th century or so. This is particularly important since most if not all of those nation states were in being well before Turkey as we know it came into existence with the breakup of the ottoman empire.

I am hardly enough of an expert to comment on the role of the Turkish military in all of this, but it seems to me that it is not unimportant that whatever counts as modernism and secularism in Turkish political life for the bulk of the 20th and early 21st centuries has been built on a very systematic rejection of the rights and identities of minority communities, who have consistently been viewed as threats to the integrity of 'Turkishness' and subjected to various violent and merely coercive means of 'ethnic cleansing' by the previous 'pre-Attaturk' regime as well as the 'Attaturk' and 'post-Attaturk' regimes. I am speaking, of course, primarily of the Armenians and the Kurds, but it must be noted that the 'modern' Turkish state has since nearly its inception been constructed on a simultaneous rejection of Theocracy (which, until relatively recently was really *not* that much of a danger) and the often violent and nearly universally repressive assertion of a constructed 'ethinic' unity that, one might say, serves a function really distinct from Islmaicism insofar as it has always served to elevate the state (and its territorial integrity--the principle point of concern always, ex-post Ottoman breakup) above all other considerations in defining the charachter of Turkish civil and political society. Is it any surprise, given this, that the Turks consistently flirted wiith other strong 'nationalist' regimes throughout the 20th century?

This, of course, leads to a reflection on your most interesting paragraph:

As the cameras captured a sea of red--of Turkish flags and red t-shirts--thousands of secular Turkish women expressed their fear that some day the Islamists might tell them to cover their heads. The fact that, at that very moment, there were millions of Turkish women whose right to higher education was denied because they donned headscarves did not seem to matter. The demonstrators believed themselves to be, in the words of one speaker who took the microphone at several rallies, "the modern, civilized face of Turkey." The implicit dehumanization of the other--the pious, the headscarved--did not bother the crowd.

Turkish national identity has, in fact, been very consistently founded on precisely such a dehumanization, and unlike other societies that have at times been overwhelmed by social forces based on this (Germany in the Nazi period being only the most obvious example) the Turks have never been called to account for it, and thier governments and educational institutions have consistently continued to arrange matters so that the ordinary people of Turkey remain very unaware of the historical realities of the constitution of thier state on the basis of such a dehumanization, or a series of them, as well as shielding them from any possibility of having to face the consequnces of that.

It seems to me that until Turkey as a nation is forced to recognize and deal with the historical contradiction between the humanity of the other within its territorial boundaries and the foundations of its national state organization, there is realtively little hope for the kind of genuinely open democratic exchange that you seem to suggest needs to be taking place, one which respects social and religious choices as such, and embraces a structure that allows those choices to remain a-political insofar as they are merely personal.

Ms. Conger,

Thank you for this informative post. It is refreshing to find some discussion of the affairs of other countries for a change here at TPM Cafe.

Could you tell us more about the recent history of the secularist party in Turkey. How exactly is it that these groups - long thought to be most in sympathy with the West - have become so inward-looking?

That was fascinating, both as valuable, informative reporting and as provocative commentary.  However, I'm uneasy with the line that blames the many demonstrators for fearing an imposition of Islamic law on women if they're also willing to tolerate enforced secular garb. If their fears are real, why shouldn't they be scared? Does it really translate into toleration of an authoritarian regime if, as you say, they also reject the military's ultimatum?

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Turkey fascinates as the first fully modern state to come out of the Ottoman Empire. That it is something like ninety years since WWI and Turkey still has unsettled issues is not surprising, given the dramatic overhaul of society it entailed.

Consider that we were still arguing, and even fighting, bloodily, over social/governance issues ninety years after our founding.

My sympathies lie with the preference to limit headscarves in public office. Most of us would be uncomfortable with a President or Congressman that wore religiously-specified garb. It is not that we wish to suppress their religion, but we don't want it presented as more important than the shared values of our society. 

I would not be bothered by headscarves in school or public commerce. Proscribing them is too restrictive and asks for trouble. And inviting public display of religion (by non-office-holders) allows public discussion of the tenets of that religion.

I'd say a fair compromise is to enshrine, in Turkey's Constitution, the freedom to talk and write about both religion and government, without worrying about charges of "disrespect". That Turkey can bring such charges against critics of the secular government means they are not superior to Islamists that take the Koran too seriously and want to jail or kill those that criticize Islam.

My favorite book about Turkey's founding is the novel "Birds Without Wings", by Louis De Bernieres.

John, you are absolutely right. If they are afraid they should be able to express that fear, and that's what they have been doing.

My point was about the secularists' lack of sensitivity to the rights and freedoms of the other. As for your question regarding the secularists' endorsement of an authoritarian regime, it's my sense that among the demonstrators there were many people who were genuinely against a possible coup, but there were also those who would prefer a military intervention rather than live with a headscarved First Lady. When it comes to  the organizers and speakers of those rallies, however, they did not hide their endorsement of authoritarianism.

Thanks for your comment,

yasemin

"They also criticized the ties with the EU"

Hopefully more and more Turks, for whateve reason, will recognize that Turkey is a middle eastern country and not a European country and that Turkey should not become a member of the European Union.

Similarly the European Union should wake up to the fact that Turkey is a middle eastern nation with a middle eastern culture, and not a European country with a European culture. Turkey does not fit into the European Union and should not be allowed to become a member.

"Most of us would be uncomfortable with a President or Congressman that wore religiously-specified garb."

If Romney becomes President, we will have a President wearing the Mormon underwear specified by the Mormon Church.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »



Book Club Calendar


Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address