In this respect, one can draw interesting parallels between the US and Turkish capitals.In Washington we have an administration accused of following through with ideological and religious convictions no matter what the rest of the people think. The main example is obviously Iraq. In Ankara the current political crisis could perhaps best be described as the latest episode of a clash between the elected executive branch of the government and other power centers such as the military and the judiciary, both of which hold strong convictions.
We all know how invading Iraq, under the influence of neocon ideology, has caused the US to make a huge foreign policy blunder. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who is among a rare group of politicians who are not bound to strong partisan convictions, depicts the war as one of the biggest mistakes in US history. The US military's death toll has hit 4,000, not to mention tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Iraqi lives lost. But President George W. Bush, coming from a tradition of strong convictions, still thinks the war's outcome "will merit the sacrifice."
Similarly, Vice President Dick Cheney, when asked last week about polls revealing that two-thirds of Americans don't think the fight in Iraq is worth the cost, replied "So?" Many of his critics took this remark as another piece of evidence of his disregard for public sentiment. The Bush-Cheney twosome's self-confident attitude stems from the conviction that no matter what the rest of the people think, they are doing the right thing and that history will eventually prove them right.
Cheney explains his and his boss' mantra thus: "I have the same strong conviction [on] the issues we're dealing with today -- the global war on terror, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq -- that all of the tough calls the president has had to make, that 30 years from now it will be clear that he made the right decisions and that the effort we mounted was the right one and that if we had listened to the polls, we would have gotten it wrong." (interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News in Ankara)
The main problem with Mr. Cheney's argument is that he tends to forget he is the elected representative of current US citizens, not those 30 years from now. It's nice to try to be visionary and act like a statesman but in a regular democracy, rulers cannot overrule the people's will. In addition, they cannot escape from accountability and transparency. People tend to fall into this trap particularly when national security is at stake, even in democracies.
Turkey, a developing democracy with even more vigorous national security sensitivities, faces a similar problem. You don't always have to be religious to have strong convictions. If one religiously believes in something, that is a conviction. There is a conviction on the part of the fiercely secularist establishment that religiosity is the number one threat to Turkey. The people have consistently spoken at elections, and the AK Party increased its voter base to 47 percent in recent elections although it was presented as a danger to secularism. However, like the Bush-Cheney mantra goes, Turkey's religiously secularist elite thinks they are doing a historic job by using various intimidation tactics which include a recent case to shut down the AK party and the threat of a military intervention last year, with little to no concern for overall public sentiments. They claim that due to the religious convictions of their leaders, the AK Party has become a hotbed of activities against the constitutionally protected secular nature of the state. Is there sufficient proof? Not necessarily. But guided by strong convictions, who needs credible evidence, anyway?
The good thing about the US is that the destiny of the American people is largely determined by elected officials, and people eventually bring politicians down if they don't agree with their convictions. In Turkey, on the contrary, despite a long history of reformation, certain publicly unaccountable power centers still aspire to design politics in line with their own political, ideological and/or religious convictions. They openly or covertly resist structural EU reforms that would deprive them of this privileged status.
Strong convictions in the US have so far resulted in at least one disastrous foreign war and a bitterly divided nation. Many people fear Bush-Cheney convictions about Iran might even lead to another unpopular war. On the other hand, strong convictions in Ankara, if not eased, might very well diminish the chances of uniting the nation and exacerbate a domestic political war with detrimental implications for Turkey's evolving democracy. It is high time decision makers in both countries rethink their convictions and try not to lose further respect for public sentiment.
