There must be a reason why these different segments of society come forward with such similar demands and discourses simultaneously. Actually, what they are highlighting are restrictions related to human rights, to freedom of education, to their lifestyle choices, to religious choices, etc. However, instead of “freedom,” their “identities” are on the agenda.
That is so because the basic ideological emphasis, as understood by the founders of the modern Turkish state, has been one of “identity.” During the nation-building period, the goal was to create a common national identity that would be all-embracing and free from differentiations. During the nation-building period, the goal was to create a common national identity that would be all-embracing and free from differentiations. All ethnic, religious and ideological groups were perceived as forces counter to this ideal, as a potential danger and even as enemies. Thus their rights and freedoms were restricted |
All (real and/or imagined) ethnic, religious and ideological groups were perceived as forces counter to this ideal, as a potential danger and even as enemies. Thus their rights and freedoms were restricted. However, the restraints were legitimized due to an “alien identity” discourse. The restrictions of basic human rights were defined as measures against anti-state identities and forces. The discriminated citizens were first characterized as foes on an identity basis -- extreme Islamists (mürteci), heretical (Alevi), separatists (Kurd), nationally foreign (the minorities), etc. -- and then they experienced the restrictions. The aggression against the “dissidents,” actually against the citizens that could not be readily assimilated in the project of ideological engineering, created an opposing force. This reaction was expressed on the basis of identity, too, simply because the oppression was initiated and carried out on an identity basis to start with. The identity issue grew and spread because the citizens were perceived and treated as agents of supposed alien identities. The phobia against (imagined or exaggerated) dangerous anti-national groups gave rise, on the part of the state apparatus, to discriminatory policies and to violations of basic human rights. This led to a vicious circle of perception-action-reaction-confirmation of initial phobias. In other words, a self-fulfilling prophesy.
 |
Eventually, all human rights issues were expressed as identity issues. In the Kurdish issue, for example, it has been claimed that the identity of the Kurds has not been “recognized,” whereas it could be argued that it was the acknowledged and feared Kurdish identity that caused the problem. The fear turned into phobia and that into oppression and the denial of basic rights. It was the perverted identity perception which caused the Kurdish reaction as well as the present-day identity issue, not the identity itself. It was the exaggerated importance of identities which caused the prohibitions, the limitations, the violation of liberties and the various oppressions.
Actually, the conflict of identities is a fight for human rights. There are efforts to create an environment where freedoms are fully enjoyed and are acknowledged by each section of society under the banner of an identity instead of as a demand for human rights. This endeavor, however, has been unproductive because it disperses the forces that face similar problems with regard to their identity and are all in need of a more democratic society. It should be added that human rights incorporate the right to associate with others and form groups, i.e., to act collectively if required. A fight for individual rights cannot get in the way of collective rights. When all kinds of “identities” are approached with this understanding, then the problem seems to be an issue of democratization and respect of human rights. In other words, focusing on “identity” may not be the shortest route to securing the aspirations of so many. A banner of “human rights” may prove a more effective way to protect all groups that want to perceive themselves with an “identity,” too. Once liberties are secured, then issues such as who speaks what language or who wears this or that will seem redundant.
*Herkül Millas is a political scientist.
