Who’s who in Turkey?
by
Herkül Millas*

One of the main aims of the government is full accession to the European Union. The same is declared by the opposition, too. There is no disagreement with respect to the legacy of the modern republic or a negation of the constitutionally declared basic principles of the state that was founded in 1923. Common worries and interests are directed at issues such as freedom of speech, human rights and the guarantee of these. (For example, those for or against the headscarf, the court trials against the military and integration with the West all refer to “modernism”!) All seem ready to try, even fight in order to secure and defend these ideals. Law is the basic discourse. Courts are seen as the source of so many ills. It is rare to find a country like Turkey where justice is referred to as much when human rights and freedom come onto the agenda. And the military is still the most respected institution by most. All claim that they are trying not to harm the army, some trying to absolve the legal action taken, others by leaving the army intact.

If one asks, these will roughly be the answers. The parties perceive their role, their identity and their polities in this way. Then a foreigner will judge that he is in a country that enjoys full harmony. The paradox is faced when one starts asking about the “other,” the political rival and the practical ways of accomplishing said aims. In such a case, the answers will give the impression that the county is experiencing a civil war. Each attributes to the other the opposite beliefs and targets of those perceived in himself. They will insist that what the “other” says is of no significance and that only the deeds and especially their secret agenda count. All politics is run on this axis: the intentions are explored. Each advances his thesis following a selective approach, that is to say, exaggerating some facts and silencing others.

The political strife in Turkey is not of left versus right or about the nature of the regime. It is not possible to say who is right and who is left or who is closer to a contemporary regime. The verbal claims form mirror images: one alleges “gerici” (unprogressive) and the other party answers back with “dinozor” (dinosaur). Apparently the self-image is one associated with modernism. The problem seems to be of an uncertainty created due to an unclear, unidentified political search not set on a distinct course. One can talk of the absence of politics, too. And in the absence of clear political aims, the fight becomes personal and abstract.

Another explanation of this political race, whose dialogue aspect is weak and whose fighting aspect is strong, may be related to the phase of nation-building. The last decades have been characterized by a determined policy of forming common national values, which instead of strengthening the consensus, created controversy. The enterprise to build a nation-state in a non-democratic environment, not allowing the free development of identities and enforcing predetermined directions, sparked reactions. The practices enforced (for the sake of national ideals) in the fields of ethnicity and religion created new social groups which were skeptical toward the out-groups instead of the expected social harmony. These groups are phobic about the “other.” From then on, every step taken by the opposite group was perceived as a threat or as evidence of a threat. Once this situation turned into a self-perpetuating spiral, the present day situation was reached -- instead of a political confrontation, we are experiencing a confrontation of groups.

Three reminders seem necessary. First, a crisis of confidence seems to be the main problem. This lack of confidence has reached such dimensions that many consider the violation of laws, of justice and even of traditional values and ethics in order to cope with the threat that they believe they are facing as legitimate and unavoidable. Some face the political opponent as an enemy in a lethal war. Second, this strife can be seen as an identity issue, too. The identity dimension can be noticed in the symbols used in this controversy: The headscarf, which may be liked or disliked; the sacredness of military uniforms; the national flags, which increase in number around us; the Arabic script; the issue of religious schools; the demonizing of the West or presenting the West as a panacea; the visits to the mausoleum to “accuse” opponents; the pilgrimage to holy places, which becomes an issue… These symbolic actions bear a value much higher than politics themselves.

The third point is that this article is written “within the country” and therefore is a product of a writer who feels he is a part of this debate. The readers have the right to know that. The writer feels close to the party that has less worries and fears (actually phobias) vis-à-vis the “other.” As for the internalization of modernity, he thinks that this is a historic process (starting with the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution). Democracy is of decisive importance in this. However, it should not escape our attention that the pursuit of democratic rights is different from the pursuit of one’s rights. Parties and individuals since antiquity have tried to secure their rights. The idea of democratic rights is a new, more abstract and internalized concept. It means showing an interest, not in our rights but in rights in general and in the rights of the “other.” This dimension is not very prominent in the parties.