Revolutions and models
by HERKÜL MİLLAS*

 In particular, the social uprisings that started in France in 1848 spread to Western and Central Europe and even to the US, causing this year to be given various names: the Spring of Nations, the Spring of Peoples, the Wave of Revolutions and the Year of Revolutions. A number of lands that we today call France, Germany, Austria, Romania, Hungary, Italy, Denmark, Poland and even Brazil had caught the revolution fever in 1848. Eventually, in many countries, rebels were defeated and ensuing structural changes were not comprehensive, but the long-term social and cultural effects of these uprisings could only be understood over time.

In Europe, there were few regions left unaffected by the 1848 wave: Britain, the Netherlands, the Russian and Ottoman empires, etc. But even in these countries, either similar revolts had occurred just some time ago -- like the Serbian and Greek uprisings -- or several reforms had been introduced to calm the public -- as was the case in Britain and the Netherlands. The reforms the Ottoman administration introduced in 1839 could be seen from this perspective. Thus, we can say that the social developments we are witnessing today are not surprising. As societies evolve and conditions ripen, a spark may set everything ablaze. We don’t know what will emerge after the fires are extinguished, but we are sure that the fires are important.

The major rift in the period from 1789-1848 was between dynasties and parliaments. This dichotomy can be recast as between monarchists and republicans or between tutelage and a democratic regime. The public had high expectations regarding parliaments. The demands raised by the middle classes and the lower classes of workers and peasants were very radical compared to the standards of the time. The clash between the classes led to massacres and there were many victims at the hands of aristocrats. It was obvious that the old regime and system would go away, but it was not clear when it would go. Today, it is apparent that a dictator -- alone or with his supporters -- can no longer continue to rule a people. But it is not very clear how long these authoritarian rulers and dictators will resist. Also we don’t know how they will go. The “kings” of today may be dethroned or executed or they may flee or -- if they have some sense -- introduce reforms. The last option is the most reasonable way, but it is rare for those who abandoned all reason in the past to resort to reasonable solutions where they are in trouble.

The movements of 1848 had been triggered by economic problems and new ideas, as is the case today. Actually, fear of new ideas is not unjustified. Speaking or writing about new ideas may give masses a dynamism that is hard to halt or block. That’s why those who detest change and the regimes that are collapsing today have always opted for implementing censorship. Yet, unlike the past, today new ideas can quickly spread all over the world using new means of communication. In the past, it would take weeks or even months for news or ideas to reach one place from another. Now, they are broadcast live. We see that our world is rapidly changing and experiencing the change personally.

As in 1848, the rebels of our time may be defeated and the old system may introduce some cosmetic changes to keep up appearances for some time to come. But it is obvious that change has reached North Africa, the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula. I don’t want to say change has reached Muslim countries because I don’t think that these “waves” are unique to a specific region. They are neither religious nor ethnic. If discoveries and the Industrial Revolution had occurred in the East, we would today be reading so-called “academic articles” explaining why the Christian world and Europe are not open to positivism, democracy, industrialization, entrepreneurship, secularism, etc.

Turkey should not be a model

I hope Turkey will stop being a model or example to these Muslim countries after these revolts. The idea of serving as a model for some countries may sound pleasing to our ears. But it is harmful in the long run. Indeed, to be a model for some countries with underdeveloped democratic and modernization practices is for Turkey to lower the bar. Assuming ourselves to be at the forefront, instead of chasing better counties, will make us lethargic. I believe that our recent close ties with some countries that can be considered less progressive in some basic parameters have produced such drawbacks, in addition to their numerous benefits. The frequently voiced Turkey-as-the-model-for-the-Muslim-world discourse has also been used as an excuse for our shortcomings. “Despite everything, we are still the best,” officials have started to assert in an effort to trivialize our problems. Moreover, it is unwarranted for Turkey to be model for the Muslim world because it has a tense democracy and controversial practices regarding secularism.

If proper regimes are established in these countries and the values of democracy and human rights are adopted by these societies and economic and political stability can be ensured, then Turkey’s role as a model for them will end, and then Turkey will start to look for models for itself. Using an analogy from sports, in order to win a race it is more useful to look at those in front of us and increase our pace than to look at those behind us and slow down. Also, it is better to be in the lower ranks of the first league than to be the leader of the second league.