However, Western intellectuals’ approach to Turkey is fraught with examples that make us laugh because many of them just think that they can understand Turkey without any possibility of error. Of course, it is wrong to say that this is categorically impossible. But it is at least expected that those experts who “know” would take a deeper look at developments, become aware of social dynamics and be able to perceive the complex network of relations that inform these dynamics. Without such an analysis, we are faced with superficiality and every comment -- which tells us nothing but the commentator’s lack of capacity to “understand” -- functions only to make Europe meaningless in the eyes of Turkey.
The reflections of those who attended the conference titled “Turkey after the 2011 Election: Challenges for the AK Government,” held at London-based think tank Chatham House, were no different from what I mention above. At the conference, where John Peet, Europe editor of The Economist, gave a speech, it was noted that one of the key issues Turkey must solve in the first place is to draft a democratic, modern constitution and also that a presidential system might lead to some detrimental outcomes. I don’t know if there are people who still think they learn something when they hear the observations that are known to and parroted by everyone, but it would be better for the Westerners who strive to follow the developments in this country to understand that the issues of constitution drafting and the presidential system exist in different contexts.
Indeed, the presidential system is something Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan believes we should discuss, but he will never try to implement it by taking great risks. On the other hand, drafting a new constitution is a move Turkey will make in order to force its legal system to become more civilian and democratic and it is critically necessary and also strongly desired by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party). The new constitution is not something devised by the government to “deceive” voters; rather, it is a foundation which the government needs badly. Furthermore, the AK Party does not seek to set in place an authoritarian legal system that would be based on religiosity. It just wants to make Turkey more democratic because it believes that piety can have more freedom in such a country.
Peet claimed that Turkey’s human rights report card is worse than that of Iraq, adding, “The last time I went to Konya, I couldn’t find a single shop selling alcoholic drinks.” Perhaps, by saying so, he secured a sort of ideological legitimacy from the participants of the conference. Clearly, the AK Party supporters in Central Anatolia are very conservative in cultural terms and this is not a novel phenomenon. Freedoms serve as a driving force for all groups to convey their sensitivities in the public domain and the pious conservatives of Turkey are using this opportunity as a preference. Here it should be noted that the total consumption of alcoholic drinks has now changed in Konya and the city still tops the list of Turkish cities with the highest availability of alcoholic drinks per person. In other words, Turkey’s conservatives continue to drink alcoholic drinks, but they are doing this in their homes. The reason for this is not that they are facing pressures, but the fact that religious people prefer restaurants that do not sell alcoholic drinks and, as they start to eat at restaurants, the restaurants adapt to these customer preferences. People who consume alcoholic drinks adapt to this situation as well, since they are also Muslims and cannot publicly advocate for the consumption of alcoholic drinks.
An analysis performed without any effort to understand what is really happening and why it happens is not useful for understanding a situation; rather, it helps to reinforce stereotypes. Thus, the assessments made in the West tend to uncritically arrive at the conclusion that Turkey is heading toward an “authoritarian regime.” The assessments that are made, which are apparent when one reads between the lines, are geared to arrive at this conclusion. However, these assessments turn out to be utterly ironic on the other side of the border. Indeed, this conclusion is nothing but propaganda “invented” by the intelligentsia of the secular groups that cannot get rid of its sense of defeat at the success of the AK Party and that tries to secure an arbitrary unification around the Republican People’s Party (CHP) in an election atmosphere.
Today no sane observer in Turkey claims that the AK Party has a “democratic” mentality. But neither does anyone claim that this party is dragging the country into an authoritarian regime. This is because no one wants to find himself in a laughable state in the eyes of society.
