Foes made us feel comfortable in a world in which we knew what to do. Constant confrontation made us feel like an “army nation,” as many leaders were proud to say, and this legitimized the tutelage of the military in public affairs. Now everything is topsy-turvy. We are not on the brink of war with Greece. We are not protesting Bulgaria for oppressing and assimilating our Turkish brethren living in that country. We have waived the visa obligation with Syria. We are rapidly integrating our economy with Iraq, especially its Kurdish north. Iran is coordinating its maneuvers against terrorism with us and expects Turkey to help tone down the harsh rhetoric of the West against its nuclear program. Last but not least, we have signed protocols to normalize relations with Armenia, mutually demonstrating enough maturity by refusing to be prisoners of the past.
This is too much, too fast. The old bureaucratic elite and the political class of Turkey, together with a part of the people at large who believe that statecraft is the art of maintaining the status quo, are baffled and horrified. The world they came into and were conditioned to live in is waning before their eyes.
This is not the full extent of change in the making. We are making peace with the Kurds on either side of the border. Those Kurds were the main culprits in the National Security Document prepared by the National Security Council that guided our national defense policy. I do not know about the present, but only a few years ago it had been seen by only a handful of people at the top, excluding most of the Cabinet ministers. Then came along the initiative to reconcile with non-Muslim minorities and lastly, reform in religious teaching was demanded by the prime minister.
What is happening? “Have we lost a war?” This is the exact wording of a question in one of the nationalist blogs. This much change is perceived as dissolution or disintegration by some circles, rather than renovation or normalization. For them constant conflict is the normal state of things. They really have a hard time grasping the fact that a system avoids lengthy conflict and dissonance because it puts the survival of the system at peril. Either the state of conflict or the system will perish.
This simple truth is acknowledged by the incumbent government of Turkey. They have also read international signs which necessitate that Turkey be a stable country in the midst of unstable regions that are rich with natural resources badly needed worldwide. Turkey is expected to be an energy hub and a democratic country that will be an exemplar for other Muslim countries run by authoritarian or totalitarian regimes.
In short Turkey’s value has gone up, but those who claim to value their country more than others are unaware of this reality. They can be excused, however, for the simple reason that they have been brought up with the belief that “a Turk’s only friend is another Turk” without really questioning it. If they looked around they would see that Turks are mainly fighting with other Turks. The main targets of their wrath are the difference that another Turkish group has or represents. That is why one ought to say to these people, “Hey, we have not lost a war, but we may finally be winning the peace.” (Thank you, Demiray Oral, of Taraf.)
The irony in the whole affair is that the government that is behind this multifaceted political agenda was looked upon as fundamentally Islamic and too xenophobic. This is what our secular, Western-oriented and “modern” segment of society believed then, as it does now, to a great extent. However, they now have an ally, namely the Israeli elite, who began to express their concern for the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government as being Islamist and anti-Western. We know politics makes strange bedfellows, but it seems it also makes conjectural prayer groups who chant the wrong verse.
State actors are gradually leaving center-stage and civilian actors are taking their place. From the way the path is laid by the AK Party government, new political forces will walk into power (at least share power) in the near future. These will never be the opposition parties (the Republican People’s Party [CHP] and the Nationalist Movement Party [MHP]). Their time is over; they belong to Turkey’s past. Their only political instrument is the dissemination of fear, suspicion and grief. Yet, we are not abandoning anything to grieve about.
If the AK Party and its allies in civil society succeed in changing the military-made Constitution (1982) together with the political party and election laws, there is no doubt that Turkey will politically become a much more versatile country and its democracy will be much more competitive. Only then can we talk about “catching up with contemporary standards” with which we can set our potential into motion and strengthen any alliance or partnership we become a part of.
