Symbolism in present-day Turkish politics: Between CHP-esque and AK Party-ish
by
KLAUS JURGENS

Linked to the debate about how to interpret a nation’s history is the use of symbols in its politics and polity as well as its civil society -- its flag, the national anthem, certain recurring public ceremonies or everyday rituals (including whether or not to hold morning school assemblies) and the like. Whose picture is supposed to grace the walls of government or educational offices is one such issue, and how to treat past leaders in relation to today’s nation-state managers is another topic.

Political symbols and a (near-) state visit

The raison d’être for writing this contribution stemmed from an event that occurred some weeks ago but in my opinion has lost nothing of its newsworthiness or general validity. I refer to the day when Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, cancelled an official visit to Argentina due to a change in local protocol. My initial reaction was disbelief, then trying to comprehend, and finally deciding not to shy away from writing about a supposedly very delicate matter.

What struck me most is that I had this feeling that one year before the next general elections (still slated for July 17, 2011) a government which had set out to break taboos apparently decided to continue on a path not unlike many past Turkish much less democratically inclined governments? So I decided to analyze whether the current Turkish government, and in light of the upcoming general elections, perhaps aims to become more “CHP-esque” instead of unwaveringly following its original course of being “AK Party-ish.”

Let me explain how I arrived at my puns

I researched and then used two words, “grotesque” and “stylish.” In this word play “CHP-esque” stands for what Turkey’s Republican People’s Party (CHP) used to promote: an isolated, ideally self-sufficient nation state (of course, an utterly impossible option) without the need for any international cooperation or contacts (except for a few military alliances or bi-lateral treaties shipped in for good measure). “AK Party-ish” is used in the sense of that since Turkey’s current prime minister, Erdoğan, came to power, style and substance go hand in hand as his ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) tries to further align the country with Europe without losing sight of traditional values.

No matter what happens in one place -- and I am referring to the brutal assault by Israeli forces on the Mavi Marmara on May 31 of this year, one of the six vessels that tried to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza -- many other (political) issues must be taken care of at the same time. Modern nation-state management implies being able to multi-task. State visits are key ingredients of that approach.

So when I heard about the cancellation of the scheduled visit to Buenos Aires and Argentina by Prime Minister Erdoğan shortly before the Israeli attack on the aid flotilla became breaking news all over the world, and when I then learned the reason, I was rather surprised, if not shocked: A reaction like the one attributed to the Turkish prime minister is something I would have expected from members of other political parties, but not from the ruling AK Party. Is the unveiling of a statue perhaps more important than trade, civil society contacts, tourism and in general terms global networking? Is the Armenian diaspora -- which has a rather extended network in Argentina as well as in France and in North America -- still able to force a Turkish prime minister to reschedule his official agenda? How come?

What went on, on the way to and in Argentina?

So what went wrong in Argentina, and what happened on the way to Buenos Aires? Why, perhaps just this once, did Turkey’s current and otherwise rather successful government react the way it did, in other words not in its usual pro-active “AK Party-ish” manner? The unveiling of a statue can for sure not have been the only reason for an official two-day state visit in the first place, or was it really?

The fact is, and as had been reported earlier in our newspaper the day after the cancellation, that permission granted earlier by the Environment Ministry of the autonomous Buenos Aires federal district to unveil a bust of the founder of the current Turkish Republic had been cancelled after efforts by Armenians who are hostile to Turkey, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner phoned Erdoğan and said Turkey was right to react; however she added that she could not overrule the autonomous Buenos Aires administration due to the constitution of Argentina. Erdoğan, nevertheless, decided to cancel his May 30 and 31 trip to Argentina, saying such an attitude was unacceptable.

What surprises me is that state visits are normally planned well ahead of the actual date of the trip. Agendas, speeches and handshakes are all part of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing. Diplomatic expertise, however, tells one to expect the unexpected. Some aspects of the previously agreed protocol may always be subject to change.

Buenos Aires was perhaps wrong not to sort out whether it wishes to unveil a statue or would rather not and communicate this decision to the Turkish government ahead of finalizing the agenda of the official visit. Turkey could then have added -- or asked for -- another program detail but otherwise proceed with the visit as originally intended. Unless, of course, the only reason for the visit was the unveiling of the said statue -- a rather far-fetched assumption I personally would not buy into.

While accepting that all foreign dignitaries on official visits to Ankara must lay a wreath at Anıtkabir, why would an official delegation from Turkey visiting another state export a similar tradition by erecting just another statue? Is this not shortchanging Turkey’s more recent and extremely successful achievements?

Donating (more) modern art an alternative?

Why not donate a piece of modern art in the name of modern Turkey, a big one for that matter, and destined for a prominent place in the receiving country where people do not simply learn about the glorious past but of today’s, European, economically successful and internationally accepted Turkey, too? Why not ask Turkish business associations such as the Independent Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association (MÜSIAD) or the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association (TÜSIAD) to collect funds and erect impressive pieces of art like the Korean Tower in Ankara, or what many other countries and dignitaries have done: bring a sculpture of “world culture” to a central park (Moore’s works spring to mind)?

I am not going so far as to suggest donating half-built bridges as Socialist International (SI) once bestowed upon İzmir in the name of Willy Brandt, one of SI’s past presidents; sculptures and monuments should have a meaning for present and future generations, and donating monuments resembling unfinished bridges do not necessarily have that even if we employ all our artistic freedom.

Having already mentioned one former West German politician, let us put this into perspective: A current unified German government would not insist on having statues of Konrad Adenauer (its first post-war leader) erected prior or during a state visit by Chancellor Angela Merkel, just as today’s British leaders would not insist on statues depicting Winston Churchill being erected prior or during a state visit by Prime Minister David Cameron. What they would do instead is to show off these icons and their achievements to visitors whilst being on their home soil. It should be stressed that over time even this has become a rather questionable practice unless a special remembrance day occurs on the international diplomatic calendar. As they say in literature and politics: the king is dead, long live the king!