The road leading to EU membership has caused political tension, gradually creating a rift defined by secular and religious differences. Today both supporters and opponents of Turkey's EU accession stand on both sides of this divide, and Turkey's recent military interventions and the ongoing Ergenekon trial have deepened the trench. A similar polarization has taken place among Westerners as well; the EU, too, has been divided over the matter of Turkey's membership. But the interesting thing is that the Ergenekon trial has a similar effect abroad as it does here, giving rise to a variety of interpretations. Those who are dubious about Turkey's EU membership and see the issue from a secularist perspective does not resign from saying how they are unhappy about weakening of the military.
Two articles reflecting these views were published in the latest edition of Le Monde Diplomatique. According to Soner Çağaptay, a Turkish analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is rapidly pulling Turkey toward religious grounds. Çağaptay thinks the government also incites anti-Semitism in the country. Çağaptay refers to news articles and interviews circulating in the media as evidence to this. He concludes that the Turkish public is less free and less equal than in the previous generation.
It is very obvious for what purpose this analysis was written. The argument means to show the West that the AK Party is reactionary and poses a dangerous threat to Turkey. But the strange thing is that flawed information is used to prove his point. Certainly we will not turn a blind eye to the government's wrongdoings, and certainly, there are still problems in the persistence of discrimination and racism, which are traditionally adopted by the government. But in reality, Turkey is not less free or equal today that it was before; to the contrary, it is freer and more equal than ever. Moreover the AK Party has taken many necessary steps in this direction, despite resistance from the opposition. While the religious circles have rapidly assimilated to the world under the rule of the AK Party, remarkable advances in secularization and individualization have taken place among even conservative people.
It is possible to understand the disappointment of those who see secularization as deviation from religion. But despite this point of view, some segments of society have, for the first time, managed to make religion a part of secular daily life and politics. Regarding the demands of Kurds, Alevis and non-Muslims, this government is more sincere and willing to take steps, as compared to former governments, although it has still fallen short of meeting our expectations and standards.
Çağaptay seems to have mixed up "military tutelage regime" with "liberalism." The fact is that the AK Party is the only party today trying to perpetuate the liberal line of former President Turgut Özal, but it is still being criticized by leftists for being "neoliberal."
Can a director working for WINEP be so ignorant? I don't think so. Çağaptay is making political sense in his own mind but using a kind of unethical logic that conceives of people as fools. Westerners know about Turkey and they do not need manipulative observers.
Another writer in Le Monde Diplomatique is Avi Primor, director of the Center for European Studies. In his article Primor talks about the sorrow he feels over the military's weakening power in Turkey. He implies that Turkish people have to live in an anti-democratic and archaic regime. The article starts with the judgment that religion and even radical fundamentalism in modern Turkey matches the scale and nature of those in the holy Turkish Republic over the past years. It is ridiculous but not surprising that an approach that describes a republic as "holy" can detect radical fundamentalism in today's Turkey. Because secularism has turned into a religion, it's hard for people to comprehend change among people of faith. But Primor is not the kind of person who surrenders to fear created by one's own ignorance. He also decides to warn Europe: "The last fans of the Ottoman Empire have for many times tried to regain influence and prevent modernity and secularism, but it has always been the military which put them in their place -- Under the pressure of the EU, the influence of the military on state affairs has been gradually restricted. So, with the diminishing of the military influence and increase of Islamization, Turkey gradually gets away from Europe."
In short, we are faced with an example of ignorance that does not even take into consideration the reason why coups were carried out in Turkey, that does not even superficially recognize Turkey and that regards clichés as honest assessments. According to this approach, one of the reasons for "Islamization" in Turkey is the EU itself, which indirectly reduces the military's influence. Thus in order to stay closer to Europe, more militarism is needed!
This is not a wholly unprecedented conclusion as we have lately seen many such similar analyses. All Ergenekon suspects and neonationalists in Turkey think the same way. Those creatinğ an illusionary Islamic threat in Turkey today are either too blind to recognize the truth in Turkey or they are too "professional" to put aside ethical concerns for the sake of their anti-democratic ambitions. It seems that it's no tragedy that Çağaptay and Primor did not become statesmen.
