There was a communal society at the beginning; this society was divided into two large segments, resulting in the emergence of a slave society followed by a feudal society shaped by serf-lord relations. The social model that capitalism created was the modern one where the proletariat and the bourgeoisie had serious clashes. Marx held that the ongoing clash between these two distinctive classes would culminate in the creation of a communist society and the recurrence of the long historical process. His predictions did not materialize. The communist regimes failed to remove class differences; they had to submit to global capitalism.
However, inter-class tension and clashes stemming from inequality still continue independently of the Marxist premises. This time the inequality is prevalent between regions and groups within a certain nation. The conflict is not always materialistic. Sometimes symbols play important roles in contemporary conflicts. Attempts at ethnic and religious cleansing, regional conflicts and invasions veil a basic fact.
The exaggerated affinity for the homeland, the supreme official ideologies, the forcing of the masses to pay tribute to certain symbols or cults and the degeneration of sacredness are used to cover the truth. Those who see themselves as privileged, assuming that they love the country most, deny the right to life to others. At every occasion, the representatives of these circles held demonstrations where they chanted “Reactionists out; reactionaries to Iran.” Nobody asked them “On what grounds do you send the people of this country off to Iran in exile?” When the veiled students asked Demirel for help, he advised them to go Saudi Arabia. Again, those circles did not recall the provisions of the Constitution. They did not ask Demirel, “Where are you sending Turkish citizens?” A few decades ago, communists were told to go to Moscow. Today, whoever does not like an individual demands that the latter leave the country. It seems that everybody regards him/herself to be the real owner of the country.
More tragically, Bekir Coşkun, who is originally from Şanlıurfa, wrote the following lines, assuming that he was part of the elite of this country, “Frankly speaking, this is the victory of the man who scratches his belly. It was he alone who made the decision in the elections. While some took to the streets for a brighter future for their children, he insidiously smiled at what was going on; he scratched his belly and gave way to the fundamentalist state. Abdullah Gül is befitting for him. Gül will be his president anyway; not mine.” (Hürriyet, Aug. 15, 2007).
Of course freedom of speech and expression should be legally protected. But the question is how Coşkun supposes he is entitled to the right to insult the people who voted for the Justice and Development Party (AK Party). Is this among the rights of elite citizen Bekir Coşkun? If so, what about the rights of the insulted millions? Does not the domination of the privileged class’ practice mean the legal restoration of the actual hegemony? In Islamic countries, the democratic theory holds a meaning different to the one described in political science textbooks. In practice, democracy is supposed to be the roadmap of disadvantaged groups in their struggle toward democratic participation in the government of their country. The July 22 elections, the election of Gül as president and the subsequent debates indicate that democracy is making progress in the right direction in the Islamic world.
