Religious people and change

It is clear that all these developments cannot be explained solely by the AK Party administration's foresight and common sense. This is the one point that those who try to understand Turkey only by looking at the AK Party fail to understand, because as far as mentality goes, the AK Party does not transcend the religious society known as “conservative.” Today the government represents the average member of that segment of society. Of course, there is a small group, comprising possibly three to five percent of the conservatives in this country that is ready to produce fanaticism out of religion. But 10 percent of the same society is more democratic than the AK Party in terms of freedoms and human rights. The change that is taking place is headed more in the direction of the second group. Most likely, 20 years ago these figures were the complete opposite or perhaps more dismal. If a Kurdish initiative is being discussed today, if Turkey is rebuilding its relations with Armenia and if Alevi workshops are being conducted, the reason for this is that the internal dynamics of an appropriate world conjuncture and the internal dynamics of Turkey's religious people are on the same level.

The resulting major sociological and ideological wave has enabled society and consequently the AK Party government to develop ties with the multicultural heritage inherited from the Ottoman era. We are looking at ourselves through the prism of a broader reference that exceeds the current strict and narrow nationalist perspective. At least the AK Party administration appears to have understood that a “powerful” Turkey can be developed if its multicultural heritage is protected.

It is for this reason that we have witnessed two speeches never heard before in the history of the republic. The speech Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan delivered during his party congress and the speech President Abdullah Gül delivered two days prior to the party congress could be signaling the passing of a point from which there is no return. Erdoğan's preferred populist tone became a means to voice things previously unspoken in this country. When the prime minister said, “No one in this country has the right to discriminate against another,” he was also putting a distance between himself and the 90-year-old state policy.

His appeal to the opposition was a declaration of his determination to be able to engage in discussion to solve problems and to launch a “new beginning” together. However, the most interesting part of Erdoğan's speech was the emphasis placed on points underlining that pressure from the base was to become more democratic. He illustrated that the reforms were being pursued not because of well-intentioned government plans but because of the nation and era's “invitation.”

As for Gül's speech on the occasion of the opening of the new legislative year, it was built over an intellectual ground and spanned a broad spectrum, addressing different points, such as the fact that the state's basic operation is to meet social demands and that the concept of security must be based on individual and social security.

 In this respect, we listened to a president that favored the protection and transmission of social and cultural differences. While emphasizing that differences are perceived as a “threat” only if we look at them with an “alienated” eye, Gül was underlining that Turkish nationalism was essentially becoming foreign to society.

 Those that have observed the AK Party closely up until now will know that these two speeches were not independent of each other. While the prime minister laid the sentimental and ideological groundwork for potential political steps and reforms, the president situated them in a contemporary understanding of justice and freedom. Not only did he openly express his support, he also invited Parliament to take the planned steps and implement the reforms.

These statements may not be considered new for Turkey. However, it is the first time that there has been so much consistency between politicians. More importantly, for the first time, we are observing a political staff commit to a democratic transformation program and decide to make the program a part of their political career. An endeavor that is generally expected from a “left” or “liberal” government is being pursued by a government that has a high Islamic sensitivity and is subject to attempts to label it “pro-Shariah.” Perhaps it is time to forego stereotypes and finally start trying to understand what is happening. Turkey is on the brink of becoming free from a nationalist republic understanding that had been legitimized by an authoritarian secularism up until now and this change is most naturally being pursued by the “natives” of this country.

We don't how much the AK Party will be able to insist on its new political line or how much progress it will make if the secular segment of society tries to inhibit it. The peculiar mentality of politics may postpone meeting the country's needs or sacrifice it to national jargon. However, the social dynamic that has produced the current desire for change is irreversible. If the AK Party cannot carry this responsibility, a different civil movement that can carry it will emerge shortly, and most likely this movement will also come from a “religious” identity.