This column should serve as a short response to the charge that alongside Mustafa Akyol and Fareed Zakaria, I too was wrong about Turkey in my writings, which argued for the consolidation of our democracy. Ambassador Loğoğlu’s argument that Turkish democracy is unique and the military has a special role to play is anathema to me. First, it assumes an inherent irrationality in the people. It underscores that the Turkish people, if not guided by the state elite (with and without uniform), could go astray. Naturally if one accepts such an attribute of the Turkish people the argument then advances that the state elite must play some sort of custodian role over a people who simply do not know what is best for them. Unsurprisingly our people tend to view such an elite as being at odds with their own values and aspirations.
Contrary to Ambassador Loğoğlu’s belief, we also value the secular nature of our democracy. We cherish the gains made by the secular regime of the republic. That said, we also value the right to education and religious freedom and seek a more friendly interpretation of the secular order that does not infringe on the rights of its citizens. How can we deny the right of a female university student to study on the basis of her religious beliefs? How can one have any credibility when arguing that traditional/Islamic lifestyles accord women an unequal position vis-à-vis men and simultaneously denying women the opportunity to study at our universities? The difference arises in how to adjust the secular nature of the regime to the realities of our society, not the fundamental precepts of our regime.
My argument that “most” secularists are suspicious of the EU, are virulently anti-American and are not at ease with globalization has been very much confirmed by the slogans, placards and speeches at the large-scale rallies they organized. Further, many secularists frequently yearn for a 1930s-type “fully independent Turkey” in what is an increasingly globalizing world. Many of them are simply incapable of understanding that opposing globalization is futile and that a modern state can only strive to maximize its independence within an interdependent global order. Ambassador Loğoğlu himself may not be, but unfortunately most secularists are either opposed to Turkey’s integration into the European Union or view it with great suspicion and paranoia. However it must be underlined that divisions over EU membership, Turkey’s relationship with the US and globalization extend across different parties. Yet there is clear evidence that on all three accounts the likelihood of such profiles being found among secularists is much higher than for those in the pro-democracy camp.
Ultimately the debate on secularism and democracy is about neither. The debate at hand is primarily about power. It is a power struggle between those who want an open, transparent and democratic Turkey and those who want to maintain a managed democracy that accords special status and privileges to an exclusive state elite.
Turkey’s state elite fears the arrival of the periphery at the center; has angst because of the appeal to an alternative vision for this country; is concerned by the growing respect for a pre-republican past; is worried by the success of an Anatolian business class; fears the emergence of an alternative media; and is genuinely worried by the legitimacy of a political movement that carries the flag of democratization in the Turkish body politic.
Should they continue to obstruct the opening up of our democracy and resist the emergence of a domestic political consensus, they will soon have to fear their impending liquidation.
