The Turkish electorate and the concept of multiculturalism
by
KLAUS JURGENS

Many of the items on Turkey’s reform agenda still need to be addressed, of course, with the drafting of a civilian constitution, reducing polarization within society and the emergence of a “ready-to-govern” political opposition being only three of them. However, none of the steps towards a full fledged civilian democracy will have a lasting impact -- or legacy, for that matter -- unless they are fully embraced and, before that, fully understood by Turkey’s electorate. One way of achieving this ambitious goal is to help facilitate Turkey’s transition to a multicultural at heart and cosmopolitan in outlook civic society.

Multiculturalism vs. cosmopolitanism

It seems appropriate -- at least from a linguistic perspective -- to accept the fact that cosmopolitanism was there first: According to Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary from 1990, cosmopolitan is defined as “a place that is cosmopolitan is full of people or things from many different countries and cultures.” A cosmopolitan person is defined as someone who “has travelled or lived in many different countries.” Hence it is a two-way street, as a city makes its people and people make a nation.

Twenty years ago the word “multiculturalism” had no dictionary entry. For the purpose of this opinion page, I have chosen the definition of multiculturalism which reads as follows: “The policy of maintaining a diversity of ethnic cultures within a community,” taken from the Collins English Dictionary, 2003.

So what distinguishes these concepts from each other? Or are they perhaps intertwined? I argue that a truly cosmopolitan person or place becomes a possibility not before said individual or place has fully embraced the concept of multiculturalism as a positive feature of society. For example: a seasoned traveler may nevertheless be xenophobic, and living in central London does not automatically imply that all Londoners are “multicultural” although they supposedly live in a cosmopolitan city. I would argue it is too easy to say that multiculturalism has become part of government policies whereas cosmopolitanism is left to the individual. I will come back to that point later.

The advent of Turkey’s internationalism

We have to take a look at a third term, which is closely linked to both multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism. Internationalism “is the belief that countries should co-operate with one another and try to understand one another” (Collins Cobuild). Although international politics is carried out by nation states’ governments, we must distinguish between studying government (example: the politics of France since 1945) versus studying international relations -- IR (example: Franco-Sino relations since the end of the Cold War).

Coming back to my introductory paragraph, I argue that the best part of the last decade witnessed Turkey becoming an emerging political as well as economic power. Had students of IR previously found little material when it came to analyzing Turkey’s international relations and had to focus on studying its government instead, by now Turkey has become a full-fledged regional player (think the UN Security Council, think Afghanistan, think humanitarian aid after a tsunami).

Turkey’s foreign policy changed dramatically and for the better after November 2002. Turkey’s government and president frequently visit foreign countries and host many foreign dignitaries, too. Within the scope of only two weeks Ankara hosted representatives from Brazil, Japan, Palestine and Germany. While I was writing this piece Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was visiting Moscow. Today’s Turkey is recognizable on the world stage and is highly respected. Foreign policy greatly contributed to this positive new image. I argue that this internationalization of Turkey must now be complemented by multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism; this will only work out, however, if the voters endorse this at the ballot box. Besides, all of this can only work if a broad consensus is established which includes the current political opposition; moreover, any political opposition which wants to be taken seriously must use foreign policy to make a point. For example, in the United Kingdom it is common practice for opposition leaders to visit foreign prime ministers and presidents.

Turkey’s island mentality -- a thing of the past

While incoming tourism is helpful, it can never be taken as the one and only key to changing a people’s perceptions of “the other,” or conversely, permanently modifying foreigners’ perceptions of their temporary host country. Nevertheless, it is still a vital tool to opening up a country both mentally and financially. Domestic realities evolve over time, and Turkey is no exception to this rule. Would it be unfair to describe the new republic that was founded in 1923 as initially being a rather inward-looking nation, and understandably so, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and a subsequent loss of trust vis-à-vis foreign states? While not entirely closing its doors to the outside world, the country was not necessarily known for its pro-active “international” outlook. There were times in the history of the republic when its leaders claimed the country could be self-sufficient and independent from any external interaction or two-way influence. I refer to this period as having promoted an island mentality -- “island mentality” used in the sense of political and economic isolation, not meant geographically. Today’s Turkey is different and fully integrated in and with our globalized world.

Personal reflections

I wish to share with our readers how I began to embrace living amongst many other cultures and nationalities. I am probably a good example for what I would refer to as having experienced a “multicultural initiation.”

I grew up in a small countryside town. Buying foreign newspapers meant a 60-minute drive to the nearest regional hub. Music was our lifeline, English language music, that is. I must confess I grew up in a “white white” society. Then one day I bought a travel guide about London, as in 1977 I was about to visit it for the first time. The book had a picture of an Afro-Caribbean bus driver as its cover -- imagine, a “non white” British citizen behind the wheel of a London icon! And rightly so -- the moment I arrived in the city which was to become my permanent home I felt at ease, somewhat liberated, totally immersed and integrated. No one was staring at you. “The other” did not exist -- everyone was equal. True, equality UK style in the 1970s and 1980s meant class divisions, too, and the moment you came home after work you felt the immense gap in the “yours” and “theirs” purchasing power. Cod or salmon, soup or steak, Woolworths or Harrods -- but what made all this tolerable was a near-total level of individual freedom for all while accepting eccentricism as a refuge for those who could afford to indulge in it. Most importantly: Creed, religion, race and skin color simply did not matter. Besides, you knew that if you tried hard enough, social mobility was waiting for you. You knew that there was a free press. You knew that parliament, not the monarchy, ran the country. I always described London as an international place, long before researchers put a label on it and termed it “cosmopolitan.” Ever after this trip to England did I promote and defend a multicultural way of life.

Where does Turkey stand with regards to multiculturalism?

Is Turkey, according to the definitions I introduced above, a multicultural, cosmopolitan or international country in outlook, and does it matter? Is it helpful to categorize entire nations or is it perhaps just another scientific attempt to put people into neat little boxes?

I have not written about the subject as part of an academic exercise. I picked the issue as I believe that adjusting to a more multicultural lifestyle is one of the things Turkey currently lacks. The reform train Turkey has embarked on will not necessarily be derailed by Brussels or Berlin. It may be forced into reverse because its own citizens were not told about the immense benefits of living in an open, multifaceted society, come EU accession now or later. Multiculturalism must be explained, understood and finally embraced as one way to lead a fulfiling and successful life. One day hopefully “global” citizens will stop going to war against each other.

Outlook

In my humble opinion and despite being someone who feels very integrated into Turkish society, I would nevertheless say “not as of yet” when asked about whether Turkey is already a multicultural country. If asked to comment on whether Turkish citizens have the potential to fully engage in a cosmopolitan society, I would say “Of course!” And last, but not least, would the nation benefit from a further (political, economic) internationalization? I would argue that it would, indeed.

Multiculturalism does not happen by itself, it needs guidance from the government and a regulatory framework that allows for Turkish and foreign citizens to live and work side-by-side. “Proactive coexistence” are the buzzwords. I hope that the 2011 election campaign will use the words multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism in their Turkish translation for the first time to further convince Turkish voters about the benefits of a prejudice-free, “social borderless society” both at home and abroad.