The AK Party and liberal attitudes
by
Atilla Yayla*

It would be perfectly normal for the LDT to have a connection with the LDP because it is not a political movement and is independent toward parties. It is an intellectual organization that has proven to cherish its principle of providing any person, organization or political party showing interest in liberal ideas with intellectual support during its 18-year history. Its purpose is not to replace politicians or bureaucrats, but ensure that liberal thought is represented and gains a footing in an intellectual environment. As a matter of fact, whatever has been written or undertaken in an academic or intellectual context is largely the product of the members of the LDT. So it can even be said that to study liberalism in Turkey in the post-1980 period is to study the history of the LDT.

Strangely, the LDP disowns any common intellectual basis with the LDT. It is true that there is not full, if not any, intellectual harmony between the two. As its intellectual wealth and assertiveness are not as substantial as that of the LDT, it is the LDP that should question its own strand of liberalism. Really, is the LDP a liberal party? Can any person or organization claim to be liberal simply by affixing the designation “liberal” to their names? Why doesn’t the LDP turn the spotlight on itself instead of hurling accusations at the academics and journalists who do not lend support to or sympathize with them? Why do they rule out the possibility of criticisms being accurate?

For a person to be liberal, s/he should declare that s/he has adopted liberal principles. As these principles are the product and consequence of life, no one can deny them completely, and for this reason, everyone has liberal tendencies to a certain extent. However, for a person to be denominated as liberal, the majority of the principles and values s/he adopts should be liberal. This is not enough, as s/he should also pass the test of his/her commitment to liberal principles and values with respect to certain concrete events. In other words, liberalism is not a label that one can earn once in a lifetime the way someone would be labeled a “graduate” after completing school. Every liberal must face the test of life. There is no guarantee that everyone can survive this gauntlet of tests. Anyone can fail at any moment and shift toward an illiberal position or completely abandon the liberal stance. There are interesting examples in our recent past. Therefore, a person or an organization that boasts of being liberal may be perfectly illiberal.

It is easier to learn liberal principles and values in theory than to pass the practical exams. You may talk about rights, the rule of law or liberties in theory, but what would you do when/if you are bothered by their concrete manifestations? Likewise, if the dominant ideas and established political and economic organization in a country are discordant with liberal principles, what would you do?

I think this is where the dilemma of the LDP and certain individuals arises. They seem to advocate liberal principles completely on a theoretical basis, but they sacrifice these principles to the values and practices of the current system in Turkey. When those who call themselves liberal do not adopt this attitude, they end up in a minority. Since they quantitatively remain in the minority, they fail to exhibit a strong stance from an intellectual perspective. Consequently, they are further trapped within their own rage and hatred and start to attack people who are not like them with smears and insults.

Those who have any connection to liberalism should pay attention to two important points. First, decent language should be used toward all people and one’s own kind. Instead of focusing on persons or personalities, their ideas should be targeted. People with different ideas should be convinced through the superiority of one’s own ideas. Second, it should not be forgotten that liberal principles and values are universal, and beyond time and place; local or conjectural principles or structures should not be preferred over liberal ones.

As for the AK Party, I know almost all of the liberals in Turkey. I have never seen or heard that any of them lend unconditional support to the AK Party. If liberals are lending conditional or partial support to the AK Party, the reason is not that this party is a full-fledged liberal party, but it is more liberal than other parties. If the Republican People’s Party (CHP) had, for example, said, “These constitutional amendments are not sufficient, and more should be implemented, such as ridding the Constitution of the authoritarian official ideology and subjugating the General Staff to the Defense Ministry,” liberals would most likely lend support to this, and this would not make them CHP supporters just as their support for the AK Party’s actions does not make them AK Party supporters.

I would like to conclude my article with a reminder for the LDP and LDP-minded people. If your primary goal is to make Turkey a more liberal country, then you have to struggle within the current system. The AK Party is neither the founder of this system nor its primary protector, though it has adopted and protected some of its characteristics and practices. Of course, the AK Party should be criticized, and some of its activities should be opposed. However, this alone does not a liberal position make. Indeed, Kemalists and (neo)nationalists oppose the AK Party, but this does not make them liberals. If you base your opposition to the AK Party on the current system, and not your liberal principles, then you will become just another obscure and weak copy of the CHP or the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). But if you oppose it from a liberal perspective, then this will both make sure that your own position becomes more liberal and force it to undertake more liberal acts. The choice is yours.