Tweet
Turkey
The battle for Turkey's soul
May 3rd 2007
The Economist print edition
If Turks have to choose, democracy is more important than secularism
AT A time when Muslim fundamentalism seems to be on the rise all around the
world, the sight of somewhere between half a million and a million people
marching through Istanbul in defence of secularism is a remarkable one. But
then Turkey is a remarkable place. As a mainly Muslim country that practises
full secular democracy, it is a working refutation of the widespread belief
that Islam and democracy are incompatible.
That's not the only reason why Turkey matters. It is a big and strategically
important country, has the largest army in NATO after America's, offers a
crucial energy route into Europe that avoids Russia and is the source of
much of the water in the Middle East. If the negotiations under way for its
entry into the European Union succeed, it will be the EU's biggest country
by population. But the reason that the world's eyes are fixed on it this
week is the possibility that the army might intervene to limit Islam's role
in government. For if Turkey cannot reconcile Islam and democracy, who can?
Cyber soldiers
Over the years Turkish democracy has shown itself to be vibrant yet fragile.
A string of military coups and interventions stand as testimony to the
army's self-appointed role as the guardian of Kemal Ataturk's secular
republic. The most recent instance came a mere ten years ago-the so-called
post-modern coup that led to the ousting of a previous moderate Islamist
government.
On April 27th the army suggested that it might do the same again. Just
before midnight, after a day of inconclusive parliamentary voting for a new
president, the army's general staff posted a declaration on its website that
attacked the nomination of Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister, for the
presidency, and hinted none too subtly at a possible coup against the mildly
Islamist Justice and Development (AK) government led by Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, the prime minister who nominated Mr Gul. On May 1st the
constitutional court annulled the first round of parliamentary voting for
the president, saying not enough members were present. Mr Erdogan promptly
said he would call a snap parliamentary election. Street protests, first in
Ankara and then in Istanbul, have heightened tension. The cities' coffee
houses are buzzing with conspiracy theories.
Given the fractious state of the main opposition parties, and his
government's record over the past four years, pollsters expect Mr Erdogan to
win another thumping majority. He may then choose to stick with Mr Gul for
the presidency, or he may look for another candidate. But he is unlikely to
pick one who meets the objections of the army and the secularists.
Turkey's secularists have always mistrusted the AK Party, which has Islamist
roots and in government has sometimes toyed with moderate Islamist measures.
They especially dislike Mr Gul and Mr Erdogan because their wives sport the
Muslim headscarf, which in Ataturk's republic is banned in public buildings.
They fret at the prospect of such people controlling not only the government
and parliament, as now, but the presidency as well. They fear that once the
AK Party has got that triple crown, it will show its true colours-and that
they will be rather greener. Given that a fundamental reading of Islamic
texts sees no distinction between religion and the state, and that
fundamentalism is spreading in the Muslim world, it is understandable that
people should entertain such fears.
Yet they do not justify a military intervention such as that of April 27th.
However desirable it may be to preserve Ataturk's secular legacy, that
cannot come at the expense of overriding the normal process of
democracy-even if that process produces bad, ineffective, corrupt or mildly
Islamist governments. Algeria, where 150,000 people died in a civil war
after an election which Islamists won was annulled in 1992, holds a sharp
lesson about what can happen when soldiers suppress popular will. Of course,
Turkey is not Algeria; but armies everywhere should beware of subverting
elections. It is up to voters, not soldiers, to punish governments-and they
will now have the opportunity to do so in Turkey.
They may not want to. Mr Erdogan's government has been Turkey's most
successful in half a century. After years of macroeconomic instability,
growth has been steady and strong, inflation has been controlled and foreign
investment has shot up. Even more impressive are the judicial and
constitutional reforms that the AK government has pushed through. Corruption
remains a blemish, but there is no sign of the government trying to overturn
Turkey's secular order. The record amply justifies Mr Erdogan's biggest
achievement: to persuade the EU to open membership talks, over 40 years
after a much less impressive Turkey first expressed its wish to join.
Who cares what Europe thinks?
Unfortunately, the EU's enthusiasm for Turkish entry, never high, has
visibly waned. Were Nicolas Sarkozy to win the French presidency on May 6th,
that would be another setback to Turkey's ambitions: he is categorically
against the notion of it ever joining the EU.
In practice there is no chance of Turkey actually signing on the dotted line
for another decade. But the perception in the country that so many current
members are against it matters, for it reduces the EU's influence. Were the
prospects of EU membership obviously brighter, the army would not have
intervened as brutally. As it is, the EU's mild condemnation was shrugged
off in Ankara, especially when the Americans said nothing at all. Their
influence in Turkey is also much diminished, mainly because the war in Iraq
has inflamed anti-American feeling.
Given the West's declining influence on their country's actions, Turks
themselves must resolve their political crisis. The best way to do that
would be to reject the army's intervention by re-electing the AK Party. The
secularists' fears of the creeping Islamisation are understandable; but the
AK Party's record does not justify it, and military intervention is no way
to avert it. For the sake of the state they are trying to protect, Turkey's
soldiers should stay out of politics.
The battle for Turkey's soul
May 3rd 2007
The Economist print edition
If Turks have to choose, democracy is more important than secularism
AT A time when Muslim fundamentalism seems to be on the rise all around the
world, the sight of somewhere between half a million and a million people
marching through Istanbul in defence of secularism is a remarkable one. But
then Turkey is a remarkable place. As a mainly Muslim country that practises
full secular democracy, it is a working refutation of the widespread belief
that Islam and democracy are incompatible.
That's not the only reason why Turkey matters. It is a big and strategically
important country, has the largest army in NATO after America's, offers a
crucial energy route into Europe that avoids Russia and is the source of
much of the water in the Middle East. If the negotiations under way for its
entry into the European Union succeed, it will be the EU's biggest country
by population. But the reason that the world's eyes are fixed on it this
week is the possibility that the army might intervene to limit Islam's role
in government. For if Turkey cannot reconcile Islam and democracy, who can?
Cyber soldiers
Over the years Turkish democracy has shown itself to be vibrant yet fragile.
A string of military coups and interventions stand as testimony to the
army's self-appointed role as the guardian of Kemal Ataturk's secular
republic. The most recent instance came a mere ten years ago-the so-called
post-modern coup that led to the ousting of a previous moderate Islamist
government.
On April 27th the army suggested that it might do the same again. Just
before midnight, after a day of inconclusive parliamentary voting for a new
president, the army's general staff posted a declaration on its website that
attacked the nomination of Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister, for the
presidency, and hinted none too subtly at a possible coup against the mildly
Islamist Justice and Development (AK) government led by Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, the prime minister who nominated Mr Gul. On May 1st the
constitutional court annulled the first round of parliamentary voting for
the president, saying not enough members were present. Mr Erdogan promptly
said he would call a snap parliamentary election. Street protests, first in
Ankara and then in Istanbul, have heightened tension. The cities' coffee
houses are buzzing with conspiracy theories.
Given the fractious state of the main opposition parties, and his
government's record over the past four years, pollsters expect Mr Erdogan to
win another thumping majority. He may then choose to stick with Mr Gul for
the presidency, or he may look for another candidate. But he is unlikely to
pick one who meets the objections of the army and the secularists.
Turkey's secularists have always mistrusted the AK Party, which has Islamist
roots and in government has sometimes toyed with moderate Islamist measures.
They especially dislike Mr Gul and Mr Erdogan because their wives sport the
Muslim headscarf, which in Ataturk's republic is banned in public buildings.
They fret at the prospect of such people controlling not only the government
and parliament, as now, but the presidency as well. They fear that once the
AK Party has got that triple crown, it will show its true colours-and that
they will be rather greener. Given that a fundamental reading of Islamic
texts sees no distinction between religion and the state, and that
fundamentalism is spreading in the Muslim world, it is understandable that
people should entertain such fears.
Yet they do not justify a military intervention such as that of April 27th.
However desirable it may be to preserve Ataturk's secular legacy, that
cannot come at the expense of overriding the normal process of
democracy-even if that process produces bad, ineffective, corrupt or mildly
Islamist governments. Algeria, where 150,000 people died in a civil war
after an election which Islamists won was annulled in 1992, holds a sharp
lesson about what can happen when soldiers suppress popular will. Of course,
Turkey is not Algeria; but armies everywhere should beware of subverting
elections. It is up to voters, not soldiers, to punish governments-and they
will now have the opportunity to do so in Turkey.
They may not want to. Mr Erdogan's government has been Turkey's most
successful in half a century. After years of macroeconomic instability,
growth has been steady and strong, inflation has been controlled and foreign
investment has shot up. Even more impressive are the judicial and
constitutional reforms that the AK government has pushed through. Corruption
remains a blemish, but there is no sign of the government trying to overturn
Turkey's secular order. The record amply justifies Mr Erdogan's biggest
achievement: to persuade the EU to open membership talks, over 40 years
after a much less impressive Turkey first expressed its wish to join.
Who cares what Europe thinks?
Unfortunately, the EU's enthusiasm for Turkish entry, never high, has
visibly waned. Were Nicolas Sarkozy to win the French presidency on May 6th,
that would be another setback to Turkey's ambitions: he is categorically
against the notion of it ever joining the EU.
In practice there is no chance of Turkey actually signing on the dotted line
for another decade. But the perception in the country that so many current
members are against it matters, for it reduces the EU's influence. Were the
prospects of EU membership obviously brighter, the army would not have
intervened as brutally. As it is, the EU's mild condemnation was shrugged
off in Ankara, especially when the Americans said nothing at all. Their
influence in Turkey is also much diminished, mainly because the war in Iraq
has inflamed anti-American feeling.
Given the West's declining influence on their country's actions, Turks
themselves must resolve their political crisis. The best way to do that
would be to reject the army's intervention by re-electing the AK Party. The
secularists' fears of the creeping Islamisation are understandable; but the
AK Party's record does not justify it, and military intervention is no way
to avert it. For the sake of the state they are trying to protect, Turkey's
soldiers should stay out of politics.