Fear of losing power makes elites against democracy, rule of law

Middle and lower-class people in Turkey were made to fear the “state” and “bureaucracy” up until a few years ago, which resulted in them living a life away from the upper class and within their own class. Such timidity led to the long reign of a certain class of people, who in time considered themselves the “real owners of the country.”

With the rise of former Prime Minister Turgut Özal -- who later became the president -- to power, the middle class inched open their doors to the outer world and realized that the outer world was indeed nothing to be afraid of.

Thanks to special scholarships offered by Özal’s government, members of this class grasped the chance to continue their higher education abroad, where they saw that the real owners of a country were its citizens, contrary to the widespread concept of the power of the elites in Turkey.

However, the seizure of the right to have a say in the government by the people, which elites considered “ordinary,” was not children’s stuff at all. Any time the “real sons of the country” were swept to power after parliamentary elections, Turkey ended in an atmosphere of chaos and internal conflict, which led to bloody coups d’état. Voters were, however, never bored or tired of electing their “real representatives” at the ballot box.

The latest example is the emergence of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) from the ballot box with nearly 47 percent of the national vote in the 2007 general elections. Turkey has been dealing with some sort of “internal struggle” since then. AK Party opponents have strived to show the party as an enemy of the secular order and the immortal principles of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic. The groundless claims brought the party on some occasions face to face with the strong and staunchly secular military, which raised fears of a coup d’état.

According to observers, the real unrest of elites with the newly emerging “middle class rulers” is by no means linked to their sensitivity to the secular order or Atatürk’s principles. Rather, it is directly related to their fear of losing “ruling power” in the country.

Ufuk Uras

“There is a fear of democracy in the real sense in Turkey. This has mainly two bases, the first of which is related to philosophy, politics and intellect while the second is related to economics and social classes. A group in Turkey dislikes democracy in philosophical terms. We can call this a ‘fear of democracy.’ They think about chaos, anarchy and conflict when fundamental political decisions are supposed to be taken by the public or its representatives. This is a reflex that stems from their lack of confidence in the public,” remarked Bekir Berat Özipek, an associate professor of political science at İstanbul Commerce University.

Özipek said the “dominant class” in Turkey, a term he used to refer to elites, obtained their advantages over society through privileges they obtained in the single-party period, but not by working in the competitive market.

Berat Özipek

For Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) Muş deputy Nuri Yaman, the inaction of people who did not seek any advantages from the malfunctioning of democracy led to tutelage on the democratic system.

The BDP, a pro-Kurdish party, is the center of harsh criticism recently due to its plans to force residents of the Kurdish-dominated eastern and southeastern parts of Turkey to boycott a public referendum on the government’s constitutional amendment package, slated for Sept. 12.

The plan was announced first by the party’s parliamentary group deputy chairman Bengi Yıldız in late June. He said Kurds will not leave their homes on the day of the referendum and will spend that day resting at home instead of going to the ballot box. He unveiled the reason of his party’s planned forced boycott of the referendum, saying Kurds will vote “yes” on the reform package if they are allowed to participate in the referendum.

Etyen Mahçupyan

Yaman, however, categorically denied claims that the BDP was afraid of Kurds’ tendency to vote in favor of the constitutional amendments in the referendum and justified his party’s plans not to allow their voters to cast a vote on Sept. 12, saying the reform package does not include any article to ameliorate the life standards of Turkey’s Kurds.

“We hold meetings with our people and tell them that the reform package does not contain any article that is related to us. The package turns a blind eye to Kurds. So, why would Kurds vote for the package? Naturally, we tell them not to go to the ballot box,” he stated.

‘CHP expects ruling power over grassroots’ fear of democracy’

According to Professor Yasin Aktay, a sociologist and columnist for the Yeni Şafak daily, political powers that “materialize” people’s fears wish to attain their political objectives over these fears.

“While some Republican People’s Party [CHP] supporters are afraid of the prospect of a change in their lifestyles, the party administration seeks to obtain the ruling power in the country. The administration has fears, too, one of which is losing the instruments they are using to foment fears in society,” he said. The professor said such contradiction between a party and its grassroots is linked to a lack of direct relation within the elements of an ideology.

Zeynep Dağı

“I am sure the killers pursue the same ideology with those who attended [journalist] Uğur Mumcu’s funeral. The launchers of hand grenades to the Cumhuriyet daily are the same people with the readers and supporters of the daily. Though this fact was exposed long ago, there has been no shift in the readers and workers of the daily,” he stated.

Cumhuriyet daily columnist Mumcu, a leading figure in investigative journalism, was killed by a remote-controlled bomb placed under his car on Jan. 24, 1993. He was long believed to have been assassinated by Islamic extremists until prosecutors investigating Ergenekon, a clandestine organization charged with plotting to overthrow the government, shed new light on his death. Prosecutors believe the journalist was killed by Ergenekon with the hope of fomenting chaos in society, which would eventually lead to a military takeover.

The Cumhuriyet daily was attacked three times in 2006, on May 5, 10 and 11. It was later revealed that a retired general, who is currently a key suspect in the trial of Ergenekon, facilitated the attacks on the daily. The attacks would help drag the country into chaos, an indispensible prerequisite for a coup d’état.

Misconception of AK Party as a ‘religious party’

For Professor Metin Heper of Ankara-based Bilkent University, the AK Party is actually the victim of a misconception of those who believe the party is a religious one and wants to restore Shariah law in Turkey. However, the AK Party is not a religious party; its top figures are pious Muslims, which are two different things.

Yasin Aktay

“Voters in Turkey have not voted for political parties since 1950 for religious or marginal motives. When one says ‘fear,’ people focus on the AK Party. For me, this is wrong for two reasons. First of all, the AK Party is not a religious party. Its top figures are pious Muslims, but they pursue a secular policy. The decisions they make in the face of serious or significant problems in such fields as economics or international relations are like those any secular party would make,” he said.

In response to a question over the reasons of some people’s fear of the ruling party and its prospect of changing lifestyles in Turkey, Heper said those people do not represent the majority in the country. “I do not think an ordinary man in the street would have such fears. Some people who are less or more educated and who consider themselves intellectual complain about having such fears,” he added.

The main founders of the AK Party -- its leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, his deputy Bülent Arınç and former Prime Minister Abdullah Gül (who is currently the president) -- were once fervent members of the Milli Görüş (National View). The movement is a religious one and seeks cooperation between the world’s Muslim nations instead of cooperation with the West or non-Muslim communities. Due to top AK Party founders’ past ties with the Milli Görüş, Turkey’s staunchly secular circles accused the ruling party of working to undermine the country’s secular order and replace it with Shariah law. The AK Party has, however, proven them wrong since the first day it came to power, as it has stood as a fervent supporter of democracy, rule of law and broader rights and freedoms for individuals. Contrary to claims that it would seek unity with Arab countries, the AK Party has taken every chance to improve ties with European countries and the EU.

‘Fear of democracy equals AK Party opposition’

People are systematically turned cold towards democracy, stated AK Party Ankara deputy Zeynep Dağı, who drew a direct relation between people’s fear of democracy with their opposition to the AK Party.

Nuri Yaman

“Debates over democracy in Turkey are associated with the AK Party. Fear of democracy is, in a sense, equal to opposition to the AK Party. We can also say the opposite. If you support democracy and the benefits of democracy, then you are inevitably accused of being a supporter of the AK Party,” she remarked.

For the deputy, a campaign of fomenting fear over AK Party administrators due to their religious identities is nothing more than an “excuse” to hide their real intentions. “This is not a fear of the AK Party indeed. Such accusations were directed at all rightists parties and their leaders since the 1960 coup d’état. Among these were Adnan Menderes, Süleyman Demirel, Turgut Özal, Mesut Yılmaz and Tansu Çiller. The accusations are produced to maintain the status quo by the military and civilian bureaucracy. The wives of leaders who were overthrown in direct or indirect coups did not wear headscarves. So it is not possible to explain the pressure on pro-democracy figures with their sensitivity to religion,” Dağı stated.

Since the rise of the AK Party to power, there has been strong anti-propaganda against the party. Many said Turkey would become like Iran soon, an argument which turned unconvincing after the AK Party accelerated efforts to join the EU. They later claimed that Turkey would become a country like Malaysia and would soon be ruled by religious laws. The claim proved wrong, too, not before long.

“Turkey is between the West and the East, but its face looks to the West. It is a country which continues negotiations with the EU. The [AK Party] government does many successful deeds but cannot enjoy them. Recently we were ranked the second country in the world in economic growth, but the media did not reflect it that way to the public. Once democracy becomes more institutionalized, Turkey will become a country that is aware of its success,” the deputy added.

According to Ufuk Uras, who was once an independent deputy and later joined the BDP, people who dislike democracy in Turkey are indeed afraid of the power of the nation.

“They do not trust the public and its will. There is a bureaucratic group that decides whether Parliament and deputies have the ability to decide on crucial matters. This is what we call the tutelage system,” he noted.

In addition, Uras drew a link between the opponents of democracy and the rule of the nation and Ergenekon, a clandestine criminal organization accused of working to overthrow the government. Dozens of Ergenekon suspects, including members of the military, academics, businessmen and journalists, are currently in prison pending trial on coup charges.

‘It is no longer possible to govern Turkey with military tutelage’

It is no longer possible to govern Turkey with military tutelage; people do not agree with the military’s rule over the country, stated Etyen Mahçupyan, editor-in-chief of Agos, an Armenian-Turkish weekly. For him, democracy is a global standard and has become a sine quo non for world nations.

“When Islamists agreed with this idea, Turkey witnessed a mental revolution. The normalization of democracy in the minds of Islamists is something that led to the ‘rule of the majority’ and that showed that people are no longer happy with the ‘rule of the minority.’ You cannot govern Turkey with military tutelage anymore. If Muslims in Turkey do not agree with military tutelage, then you can suppose that Turkey is heading toward a new regime, which is clearly democracy,” Mahçupyan remarked.

In response to a question over the dangers of rising tension among political parties, Mahçupyan said most parties build their policies on a wish to survive.

“The MHP, for example, wishes to dig an area for itself and protect it. It has nothing at hand other than nationalism. You may hear rather plausible words from an MHP member when you chat one-to-one with him. However, he speaks of totally different things when he addresses the public. This is the same case for a BDP member. They see and say that there is an ‘improvement’ in Turkey. But they are afraid of losing their own area or grounds if they adopt the improvement to their parties,” he said.

According to Mahçupyan, the AK Party is like an “invasive movement.” “It narrows down the movement area of other parties with its reformist spirit.

Opposition parties that have great difficulty in keeping up with the ruling party want it to stumble and fall down, which detain them from making ‘right opposition,” he added.

He also said the anti-democratic position of some individuals may have financial and class-related reasons. For him, the republic created a secular community for itself in its early years and gave this community socio-economic privilege. “The republic supported certain families. And those families became prominent in diplomacy, the business world and journalism. Their representatives still top Turkey’s most critical positions,” he noted, adding that these people are afraid of losing their privilege and thus stand opposed to efforts to improve democracy in Turkey.