A stable axis in Turkey?
by
Herkül Millas*

Oh, if it only had shifted!

These days the term “axis shift” in Turkey refers to foreign policy. Minor contingent shifts of axis should be seen as normal, unavoidable and harmless. If needed, subsequent readjustments are always possible. Foreign policy often contains such swings. No doubt in a sense there is a shift in Turkey, and this is how Turkey is seen by some: in alliance with Hamas against Israel, not against the faults of the president of Sudan or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There are, however, some questions, too. Is this policy a permanent new direction or a temporary one? Is there really a shift, or only the perception of it? It is also possible that some may have purposely started a discussion on an alleged shift of axis. Whatever the case, time will tell; as for the government, apart from its policy it should take care of its image, too.

Actually the real worry should be directed at an unshaken axis: domestic policy. The main issue of modern Turkey has been the process of democratization. This problem has sometimes been expressed as a one-party regime or as a coup d'état backed by civilians or as a conflict between the bureaucracy and Parliament. The European Union connection gave new impetus in this field. The recent judicial decisions, however, show dangerous developments and cause serious concerns. The high courts are in opposition to Parliament, i.e., against the government. The annulment of decisions and laws passed in Parliament by the high courts has turned into a recurring practice. It is widely proclaimed that the judicial system (at least a section of it) is highly politicized. There are courts whose decisions can be foreseen and are taken in accordance with their ideological inclinations. And worse, these decisions are publicly praised. This can be seen as a double political power or as an absence of power.

It is less important who is right. An absence power, or a double political power with two captains who hate each other are steering simultaneously, is worse than an authoritarian regime. Actually, the captains see each other as enemies, and they annul decisions taken by the other. New elections do not appear a wise solution, either. The cycle will repeat itself: Either the electoral body, the people, will somehow be "deceived,” or the elected party will be considered traitors, enemies. Naturally court interventions will follow. And the conscience of all sides remains clear since they prove their correctness by merely demonstrating some shortcomings of the other side. How can one explain in this milieu that a fault of one side is not proof of the correctness of the other? Can't they both be wrong or both partly right?

An old tradition of uprisings always existed in Turkey (e.g., the Jelali revolts of the 16th and 17th centuries), but these actions were limited to minorities and marginal segments of society. The new tendency is disobedience vis-a-vis the state authority, which is expressed by groups that appear as the majority of the people. To name and condemn this tendency as “wrong” does not constitute the most appropriate means to fight this phenomenon. This is the end result of decades-long strife for demands for democratization. The unorthodox twin power rule does not meet present-day social requirements. The two captains fighting over the helm may lead to a shipwreck.

I chose an impartial approach in this article whereas in fact I am not neutral. I tried to look impartial because I am aware of the ills of condemning one of the parties. The others will expect all concessions and steps to be taken by the one criticized, whereas all need to contribute to the process of overcoming the crisis. Citizens worrying about their future, working men and investors, youths who need to plan their lives, foreigners who want to deal with Turkey, need to know who governs the country, and on what basis. A pre-civil war atmosphere is a source of doubt, nervousness and fear for all. Until now the “state” was fully respected by almost all -- especially after each military coup d'état and during the one-party regime. But nowadays people are familiar with the benefits of democracy (which is in fact disastrous for some), and they want to have a say in electing the “captain.” There is no return, say, to the 1940s. And in this issue I am not neutral; I am all in favor of this.

All these issues, perceptions, doubts and struggles of personal interest feed each other. Where does one find a solution? I think the main “mistake” is to perceive the opponent who thinks and feels differently as an enemy. This mindset alone creates an environment where total war appears unavoidable. Justice and laws are seen as redundant. Popular will is considered superfluous, too. The issue turns to who delivers the deadly blow first. All these thoughts and perceptions can be seen politically as a problem of democratization. Looking at the same process historically one can pinpoint nation building and a search for a minimum social consensus, still to be achieved. Strife is the most stable axis in this community. Naturally one wishes for it to shift and be overcome.