The Hrant Dink murder is an important milestone and turning point because it has shown the desire and eagerness of a nation that has stayed emotionally polarized with regard to reunification. Failure to ensure the survival of a peaceful, dignified, democratic Anatolian-Armenian relationship has been heavy baggage for everybody in this country. Dink, who lay on the ground with his worn shoes, was like the addition of a dark past. He and his death showed us that there is a great price for failing to confront the past and to effectively deal with the coup instigators and the rule of murderers.
The people who attended Dink’s funeral and the remembrance ceremony held on Jan. 19, 2012, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of his murder showed that they were unwilling to live in such a country. These demonstrations served as visible popular support for dealing with the poisonous past started by the leaders of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) in a raid in 1913. Everybody is now aware that partial democratization keeps them weak and that demands raised in reference to this partial democratization lead to them being manipulated. In other words, exclusive reference by an Armenian, a Kurd or a Muslim to his or her own rights refers to a state of weakness that the oligarchy is in fact looking for. In this way, these demands may be presented to the rest of the nation as a threat.
However, the consolidation of power for a better democracy based on universal standards and the protection of the rights of different groups is far more influential. During the first term of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), the impact of the EU membership bid was more visible. Therefore, the EU membership bid allowed us to make progress without considering the prejudices of and confrontation between different social groups. In other words, in the struggle to address the headscarf problem of religious people, there was no need for a separate strategy for the rights of the Alevis, the abolishment of classes on religion or the reopening of the Halki Seminary.
Likewise, some ordinary Alevis who were fighting for their rights were not uncomfortable with the contradiction of opposing the headscarf and supporting the injustice in conjunction with the coefficient problem in university admission. A religious party was in power and it was making some efforts, but the EU was already requesting these reforms. The reforms that the AK Party introduced did not bother the Muslims because of assurances from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In other words, the Muslims were in power and confident during this process and, for this reason, they adopted a progressive stance. The motor behind this process since 2002 has been this group of people anyway.
The Dink murder was committed at such a juncture. The Armenian story has revealed history with all its baggage, and particularly the 1915 massacres, which I call founding trauma, as well as their perpetrators. Those who perpetrated the 1915 massacres were also behind the murders of İskilipli Atıf Hoca and Cavit Bey, the establishment of martial courts, the introduction of the Wealth Tax, the commission of the Sept. 6-7, 1955 pogroms, the execution of Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, the organization of the massacres before the Sept. 12, 1980 coup, laying the ground for the Feb. 28, 1997 coup and the killing of a number of Kurds. This was the method used to govern the state. Despite the collapse of the Ottoman state and the creation of the republican regime, Turkey has been ruled by a mentality introduced by those who staged a coup in 1913. I am talking about a century -- I am talking about the tradition of a gang that has remained opposed to the people and democracy.
Is it possible to argue that this century was unsuccessful? What was successful? It was the legitimization of methods advanced by the CUP mindset. True, most probably, the Sivas Madımak massacre was carried out by a deep state organization. However, how would we explain the “Muslim” people who gathered around the hotel asking for the building to be set on fire? By deception alone? If we do this, would we not be the same as those who follow a Kemalist mentality, which does not consider the people mature enough? True, the Alevis still support an antidemocratic stance on the headscarf issue, but didn’t religious people indirectly support the state’s dirty policies and war through nationalism?
The Dink murder stands right there. True, I gave a definition of an organization that seeks to topple the AK Party government. But what would you say about the bureaucrats of the same government who ignored extensive information about a potential murder? How would you explain the protection of these bureaucrats over the past five years? How would you explain the morality of the police officers who ensured that the murderer posed in front of the Turkish flag at the Samsun Police Department? It is hard to get concrete results without realizing that this poisonous century created vicious ethics.
In my last column, I made mention of a speech I delivered at the event in Paris held to remember Hrant Dink. I found the attitude of the diaspora -- by diaspora I mean all people, and their children, who left Turkey -- pretty grave. These are mostly people who migrated out of fear, as well as for their children. They tend to oppose any constructive or positive remarks about Turkey. I cannot make generalizations, of course, but most of them hold this attitude. The day they left Turkey is frozen in time for them. That they were not understood undermined their efforts to understand. It is as if they are living in the Turkey of the 1980s. The Armenians, leftists, Kurds and Alevis are all furious with Turkey because they were victimized and want justice.
Expectation of justice
A point that needs to be underlined is that there is an expectation of justice. Regardless of what is happening, they believe Turkey will never change. They have waited for the delivery of justice for a century. This has sharpened their expectations and converted an anticipation of justice into a request for punishment. The fact that a religious party is in power has made things even more complicated. The AK Party’s reluctance over the last two years to introduce further reforms -- its reluctance to address growing concerns over authoritarian tendencies and Turkey’s conviction by the European court -- reinforce this judgment.
I observed in the Armenians that the feelings associated with the peace and dialogue and the extensive support of thousands of people for Dink after his murder are in decline in the aftermath of Turkey’s excessive reaction to the genocide denial bill adopted by the French Senate. It is even known that the illegal demonstration held outside the Senate was organized by Turkey. This created an impression among many Armenians that the CUP was still haunting them in their new homeland.
And they are not actually wrong, because the unreasonable reaction by Turkey to the genocide bill reminds us of the old Turkey. A prime minister who offered an apology for the Dersim massacre has not made a single compassionate remark about 1915 yet; he has not given any insight on a different approach to this matter. Collective denial of the 1915 events through strong statements and an extremely defensive attitude has undermined the AK Party’s image as a promoter of change here.
However, Turkey could have relied on a more compassionate discourse for the 1915 incidents without compromising its official position on the legal definition of genocide -- it would not actually matter even if the events are defined as genocide, considering they had nothing to do with Turkey. To do this, the prime minister could have moved slightly away from the position of people like Şükrü Elekdağ and more towards the standpoint of constructive figures like Dink.
Still, the cautious approach of the prime minister after the adoption of the bill by the French Senate raises hopes. The referral of the bill to the Constitutional Council is of course an important factor in this. As 2015 approaches, the Armenian problem and 1915 will be more frequently discussed. The denial bill adopted in France was a good opportunity for a paradigm shift, but this opportunity was missed. I hope such discussions will help similar future opportunities to be seized.
