The nearer to the referendum we get, the less convincing the “no” faction becomes. I have not come across a single serious argument that would make me change my mind and start writing in favor of this movement. Actually, I am not certain whether “movement” is the correct term as it seems that a number of various groups and segments of society (including one major political party) are going to vote “no,” and that they have no streamlined or coordinated approach. This underlines my assumption that those who want to say “no” have their own agendas, and not necessarily the well-being of Turkey’s emerging civil society, in mind.Not surprisingly, as we approach Sept. 12 a number of deplorable violent clashes and incidents have occurred, as widely reported in the media. Sad as it is, each and every provocation and, even more worrisome, those that lead to fatalities are immediately used by members of this loosely connected network to justify their illogical train of thought – – which seems to conclude that both the current government’s democratic initiative and the fact that there is a referendum in the first place will bring the country closer to anarchy.
What is missing from their arguments, and what they conveniently overlook, is the question of why Turkish society developed the way it did and why so many issues remain unsolved all these years. They forget that the need for a new, civilian constitution did not arise overnight, but is a consequence of a lack of civilian democracy, happily supported by those factions who are now asking for a “no” vote. They know that after the referendum a brand-new constitution is waiting to be drafted which will erase their last remaining privileges. These are privileges they awarded themselves, and did not earn on merit.
What I have not fully understood as of yet is why sizeable parts of Turkish society have for so long supported these groups who didn’t necessarily help them lead a more economically prosperous life. Self-styled elites in parts of the military, segments of the bureaucracy, ranks within academia and in business made use of the country as if it were a self-service counter, but relied on public support to continue their crusade against a fully fledged civilian democracy. They won elections, correct, but how?
Why would, for example, a carpenter support those who do not wish him to become a liberated, free individual fully enjoying his civic rights? How was it possible that many academics – – who are supposed to promote the principles of academic freedom and, in particular, free speech – – became silent followers of Ankara’s oligarchy? There are questions, but no answers. Much soul-searching needs to be done to fully understand why a sudden change in direction occurred only early in the new millennium. Can it be that Turkey’s citizens finally “had enough?”
I am neither in favor of those engaging in today’s provocations nor of those who wish to, politically speaking, cash in on them. Turkey needs less polarization, less conflict, but it is not the current government that brought Turkey to this point, its previous leaders and rulers did. The current government aims at exactly the opposite outcome: to foster an inclusive society all the way from Van in the east to İzmir in the west, and from Samsun in the north to Antalya in the south, and everywhere in between.
The current government must refrain from thinking that a majority widely expected to vote “yes” automatically translates into a similar success in 2011. But, the present opposition, if it entertains any hopes to win either the 2011 or 2015 general elections, would be well advised to start listening to the people including carpenters, parents, teachers, the young and the not so young, small and medium-sized business owners and a new breed of academics, too. Finally, they have begun to speak up.
