Tweet
ISLAMISTS VERSUS KEMALISTS: THE COMING STORM IN TURKEY
http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.html? newsid=6317&lang=US
By Dr. Christos Evangeliou
Professor of Philosophy
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and the national movement of Kemalism which he
initiated in the 1920'ies, may finally meet their nemesis in the
person of Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the charismatic leader of the
ruling Islamist Party and current Prime Minister of Turkey. The year
2007 did not begin well for Turkey, with the hideous murder of Hrant
Dink, Editor-in-Chief of Agos, the main newspaper of the Armenian
Community in Constantinople. But, in all probability, this year will
be fateful for Turkey's future, for it will be a year of elections for
a new President as well as a new Government, perhaps with many
surprises.
It is reasonable, therefore, that the question in the minds of many
thinking Turks and their friends these days is whether the history of
the 1997 will be repeated, with Mr. Erdogan in the role of
Mr. Erbakan. Some also wonder whether Erdogan will decide finally to
use his current parliamentary majority to have himself elected
President, in the parliamentary election of the President in the
spring, leaving thus his trusted friend, Mr. Abdullah Gul, to lead the
Islamist Party (AKP) to a renewed victory in the fall of 2007.
However, such possible development will not go down well with the
powerful Turkish Military, which is the real political power in Turkey
since the time of Ataturk. Traditionally, the Turkish Military has
kept a vigilant eye on the political developments and has intervened
regularly every ten years or so to put Turkey back in the `right
track,' any time the poor country tried to breathe a little more
freely and more democratically.
These days the Turkish Military, under the leadership of General
Buyukanit, does not seem thrilled with the possibility of having the
headscarves of Mrs. Erdogan and her Islamist friends in and out of
the Presidential Palace of the nominally `secular' Turkey. But, given
Erdogan's demagogic appeal to the Islamic masses, the Kemalists may
not have a choice, unless they decide to take drastic action
soon. Hence the possibility of a collision between Erdogan's Islamists
(the same as Erbakan's in 1997) and Kemalists, who seem determined to
keep Turkey `secular' and under their control in perpetuity.
This may sound strange and paradoxical in view of the fact that Turkey
desires to become a member of the European Union, where militaries are
under ` political control.' The Erdogan Government, so far at least,
has played very skillfully the card of a process of possible
membership in the EU in the distant future, in order to weaken the
Military's grip on power in Turkey, while at the same time it has
advanced the interests of the AKP. But it is doubtful that the
Kemalists will allow Erdogan and his Party to proceed further in a
direction which, in their minds, under-mines the `secularism' of
Ataturk's legacy.
Kemalism, as a political phenomenon, was the product of political
conditions that obtained at the end of World War I, the Great War that
brought an end to three Empires: the Austrian, the Russian, and the
Turkish. Several nationalistic, militaristic, and secular movements
took shape at the period between the end of the First and the Second
World War in Europe, in response to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia
in 1917: Fascism in Italy, Kemalism in Turkey, Nazism in Germany, and
the dictatorial regimes of Franko in Spain and Metaxas in Greece. Of
these regimes, Kemalism proved to be most durable.
It is a mark of Ataturk's genius that Kemalism is still active in
Turkey, while the other revolutionary regimes of the 20th century have
been dead and forgotten a long time ago. The creations of Metaxas,
Franko, Mussolini, Hitler, and even Lenin and Stalin, are history
now. Only Ataturk's structure was able to survive to this day. This
may be partly due to the fact that, even after his Party gave up the
monopoly of political power, real power remained with the Turkish
Military (that is, the National Security Council). The parties were
allowed to play their political game of holding elections periodically
and succeeding each other in government, so long as they did this by
following the rules of the game as established by the NSC. Until now,
the scheme has worked remarkably well.
But now the Islamists in power in Turkey may decide to change the
rules of this old game that is getting to their nerves. Since they do
have the majority of the vote, they may undo democratically the
`secularism' that General Kemal established dictatorially. Following
the example of the Iranian Islamist Revolution, they may set new rules
for the game, with controlling power in the hands, not of Generals,
but Imams, Ayatollahs, or a Caliph. Such development will certainly
make Mustafa Kemal turn in his grave, and make Kemalism history
finally. Such possible development will be in accord with the spirit
of revival revolutionary Islam that is spreading in the Middle East
and in Anatolia. But will Kemalists permit its coming, if they think
that they have the power to prevent it?
That is the question to which this year, as we said, is expected to
provide the answer.
The situation is serious, and not only for Turkey and its political
future. Judging by certain recent moves and pronouncements of the
Turkish NSC regarding the Cyprus problem, they seem to contradict the
statements of the Erdogan Government and its expected moves to meet
its responsibilities to the EU that will allow the process of
negotiations to continue.
So, Cyprus may be used once again as a pretext for the Turkish
Military to take action to frustrate the designs of Erdogan's
Party. The Greek diplomacy would do well to keep an eye on forthcoming
political developments in Turkey and to be prepared to act
accordingly. Given its recent history of `surprises,' it should not be
surprised this time.
Alternatively, the Turks may decide to interfere in the politics of
Northern Iraq. This could happen especially if the Turkish militarists
believed that the US has by now forgotten the Turkish refusal of its
request to open a second front in the North in the crucial face of the
Iraq war, in the spring of 2003. The US paid a heavy price for
that. It cannot forget, although it seems that it has forgiven the
Erdogan Government and the Turkish Military for being uncooperative
and even unfriendly in a time of need. That is not what was expected
from an ally, on whose military America has invested so many billions
of dollars for so many years. Communism may be dead, but Islamism is
re-born.
Dr. Christos Evangeliou is Professor of Hellenic Philosophy at Towson
University, and author of several books including the latest, Hellenic
Philosophy: Origin and Character.
http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.html? newsid=6317&lang=US
By Dr. Christos Evangeliou
Professor of Philosophy
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and the national movement of Kemalism which he
initiated in the 1920'ies, may finally meet their nemesis in the
person of Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the charismatic leader of the
ruling Islamist Party and current Prime Minister of Turkey. The year
2007 did not begin well for Turkey, with the hideous murder of Hrant
Dink, Editor-in-Chief of Agos, the main newspaper of the Armenian
Community in Constantinople. But, in all probability, this year will
be fateful for Turkey's future, for it will be a year of elections for
a new President as well as a new Government, perhaps with many
surprises.
It is reasonable, therefore, that the question in the minds of many
thinking Turks and their friends these days is whether the history of
the 1997 will be repeated, with Mr. Erdogan in the role of
Mr. Erbakan. Some also wonder whether Erdogan will decide finally to
use his current parliamentary majority to have himself elected
President, in the parliamentary election of the President in the
spring, leaving thus his trusted friend, Mr. Abdullah Gul, to lead the
Islamist Party (AKP) to a renewed victory in the fall of 2007.
However, such possible development will not go down well with the
powerful Turkish Military, which is the real political power in Turkey
since the time of Ataturk. Traditionally, the Turkish Military has
kept a vigilant eye on the political developments and has intervened
regularly every ten years or so to put Turkey back in the `right
track,' any time the poor country tried to breathe a little more
freely and more democratically.
These days the Turkish Military, under the leadership of General
Buyukanit, does not seem thrilled with the possibility of having the
headscarves of Mrs. Erdogan and her Islamist friends in and out of
the Presidential Palace of the nominally `secular' Turkey. But, given
Erdogan's demagogic appeal to the Islamic masses, the Kemalists may
not have a choice, unless they decide to take drastic action
soon. Hence the possibility of a collision between Erdogan's Islamists
(the same as Erbakan's in 1997) and Kemalists, who seem determined to
keep Turkey `secular' and under their control in perpetuity.
This may sound strange and paradoxical in view of the fact that Turkey
desires to become a member of the European Union, where militaries are
under ` political control.' The Erdogan Government, so far at least,
has played very skillfully the card of a process of possible
membership in the EU in the distant future, in order to weaken the
Military's grip on power in Turkey, while at the same time it has
advanced the interests of the AKP. But it is doubtful that the
Kemalists will allow Erdogan and his Party to proceed further in a
direction which, in their minds, under-mines the `secularism' of
Ataturk's legacy.
Kemalism, as a political phenomenon, was the product of political
conditions that obtained at the end of World War I, the Great War that
brought an end to three Empires: the Austrian, the Russian, and the
Turkish. Several nationalistic, militaristic, and secular movements
took shape at the period between the end of the First and the Second
World War in Europe, in response to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia
in 1917: Fascism in Italy, Kemalism in Turkey, Nazism in Germany, and
the dictatorial regimes of Franko in Spain and Metaxas in Greece. Of
these regimes, Kemalism proved to be most durable.
It is a mark of Ataturk's genius that Kemalism is still active in
Turkey, while the other revolutionary regimes of the 20th century have
been dead and forgotten a long time ago. The creations of Metaxas,
Franko, Mussolini, Hitler, and even Lenin and Stalin, are history
now. Only Ataturk's structure was able to survive to this day. This
may be partly due to the fact that, even after his Party gave up the
monopoly of political power, real power remained with the Turkish
Military (that is, the National Security Council). The parties were
allowed to play their political game of holding elections periodically
and succeeding each other in government, so long as they did this by
following the rules of the game as established by the NSC. Until now,
the scheme has worked remarkably well.
But now the Islamists in power in Turkey may decide to change the
rules of this old game that is getting to their nerves. Since they do
have the majority of the vote, they may undo democratically the
`secularism' that General Kemal established dictatorially. Following
the example of the Iranian Islamist Revolution, they may set new rules
for the game, with controlling power in the hands, not of Generals,
but Imams, Ayatollahs, or a Caliph. Such development will certainly
make Mustafa Kemal turn in his grave, and make Kemalism history
finally. Such possible development will be in accord with the spirit
of revival revolutionary Islam that is spreading in the Middle East
and in Anatolia. But will Kemalists permit its coming, if they think
that they have the power to prevent it?
That is the question to which this year, as we said, is expected to
provide the answer.
The situation is serious, and not only for Turkey and its political
future. Judging by certain recent moves and pronouncements of the
Turkish NSC regarding the Cyprus problem, they seem to contradict the
statements of the Erdogan Government and its expected moves to meet
its responsibilities to the EU that will allow the process of
negotiations to continue.
So, Cyprus may be used once again as a pretext for the Turkish
Military to take action to frustrate the designs of Erdogan's
Party. The Greek diplomacy would do well to keep an eye on forthcoming
political developments in Turkey and to be prepared to act
accordingly. Given its recent history of `surprises,' it should not be
surprised this time.
Alternatively, the Turks may decide to interfere in the politics of
Northern Iraq. This could happen especially if the Turkish militarists
believed that the US has by now forgotten the Turkish refusal of its
request to open a second front in the North in the crucial face of the
Iraq war, in the spring of 2003. The US paid a heavy price for
that. It cannot forget, although it seems that it has forgiven the
Erdogan Government and the Turkish Military for being uncooperative
and even unfriendly in a time of need. That is not what was expected
from an ally, on whose military America has invested so many billions
of dollars for so many years. Communism may be dead, but Islamism is
re-born.
Dr. Christos Evangeliou is Professor of Hellenic Philosophy at Towson
University, and author of several books including the latest, Hellenic
Philosophy: Origin and Character.