Praise for the Zaman daily
by Herkül Millas*

 In the present time, partisanship carries a negative connotation; by this word, users mean “flatterer,” “sycophant,” “suck up,” “toady” and “bigot.” The conclusion I draw from of my experience as a writer for the Zaman daily for the past nine years is that even tough the paper has a certain view and stance with regard to any situation or incident -- that it has affinity with some whereas it remains distant to others -- it has never been partisan in a sense that has been widely used by some circles.

Many of my columns were critical, and I have been critical of the government, of some social groups and circles and sometimes of the views held and promoted by Zaman. I send the drafts of my columns to my friends when I send them to the paper as well. Interestingly, some of my friends told me on numerous occasions that Zaman would not publish such pieces. And there was one particular incident when a friend of mine said, “Well, if they publish this, I will show them respect by kissing their hands.” More than 200 columns of mine have been published verbatim. One of my friends has promised that he would kiss Zaman Editor-in-Chief Ekrem Dumanlı’s hands.

The reason I am writing this is because I would like to turn the attention to the already existing or desired prejudice against Zaman. This prejudiced discourse is the product of common attack against all groups that support the ruling party, but it is also, at the same time, the discourse that feeds this pervasive homogenous attack, making for a vicious cycle. Because some individuals display the unconditional faithfulness of a militant within a certain camp, some see everyone as they do themselves. When I criticize something that I find wrong and defend what I find right, I can not disregard Zaman. I have penned enough columns that would eliminate any criticism that I am trying to suck up: those who know me already know me, and what people who don’t know me will say is really of no concern to me anymore.

It is a traditional tendency that foreign policy is the least criticized domain in Turkey because it is considered a cause of great national importance. Foreign policy may receive general criticism. However, the nation is expected to act united when there is an enemy or foe. Because it is closely connected to the top of the political administration, any mild accusation or critical remarks on foreign policy is regarded a risky business. Criticisms in this critical sphere are fairly limited. When it comes to national causes, the approach of “one fist-one heart” becomes more visible. But it is at such times when the value and use of the criticism should be sought. In such crises, leaders are all left alone. By this I do not mean that they ran out of supporters. Quite the contrary, people who praise them unconditionally side with them. But the applauding crowd represents the very absence of any counsel.

In recent weeks, Turkey forgot to fortify its national defense while scoring points in foreign policy. It is common in Turkey to make analogies by using football terms. I however, shared the risks associated with self-confidence. But I also realized that some other columnists at Zaman have adopted a similar critical approach. One of them wrote: “It is necessary to realize the negative atmosphere in the foreign relations and to take proper measures to address it. It seems that a headwind has taken oath to undermine this bright picture in foreign policy over the last two years. Some actors which have been included in the history of the successes of Turkey’s foreign policy either moved or are about to side with those in opposition of Turkey: The Greeks, Israel, Armenia, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Syria and Iran.” Another columnist made this analogy: “There is a type of driver who feels he has to use the left lane on the highway, forcing the cars in front of them to clear the way. The foreign policy that the government has been pursuing since the elections reminded me of these left lane lovers.” Some others wrote: “The discourse of foreign threats alienates the polity and society because if there is external threat, all are asked to act uniformly. …Well, OK, we are heroes, brave and Ottoman, but are we ready to take our democracy ten years back?” and “By acting in line with the US, which does not want Turkey-Syria-Iran relations, we have shifted from using a silent power mode to a hawkish power mode.” Zaman’s “partisanship” is actually based on the faith and the foresight of those who make this paper possible. These columns prove that you can support whoever you like, and criticizing who you do not like. Partisanship becomes meaningless in this environment where pluralism (not cacophony) is the real objective. When all columnists do not hold the same view, partisanship becomes meaningless in practice.

On the other hand, most of the columnists who do not consider themselves as partisan did not make such statements despite their inherent opposition to the government. Well, if they had done so, this would not have had a meaning or use because they have opposed to the government and Justice and Development Party (AK Party) for years. Their criticisms have become regular now. Because they did not make any positive statement in the past, their opposite remarks now hold no value. And most of these criticisms did not aim to correct a mistake. The goal was to criticize the government. The most constructive criticisms and warnings regarding foreign policy were raised in Zaman and other supposedly partisan papers. The result is very interesting and promising: the foreign minister invited those columnists who raised criticisms and listened to their complaints. So, this means that we should reconsider this whole partisanship issue. I am aware that there are some “ready fronts” eager to make inferences out of what I wrote. Let me underline what I do not mean. I have never said Zaman is perfect and there is nothing to be criticized. What I did say is that the accusation of partisanship becomes meaningless in face of the developments taking place and actually it turns into slander in case of insistence on this matter. This unfair inference is actually spreading abroad as well. There are many who understand from “government sympathizer” “government mouthpiece.” I hope these recent developments help all better understand the function of the Zaman daily.

Herkül Millas is a political scientist.