Tweet
TURKEY'S ARMY AND THE WEST'S HYPOCRISY
Rageh Omaar
New Statesman, UK
May 10 2007
Listen RSS A spontaneous demonstration in favour of secularism in
Turkey was hailed as a beacon of hope but the reality is much more
complicated
It was, without doubt, an impressive demonstration of people power,
in a country on the edge of Europe that seeks to become a part of it.
Almost a million Turks marched in Istanbul to show support for their
secular republic. In an age when many in liberal, secular democracies
in the west fear what they perceive as the relentless rise of militant
political Islam, the sight of a spontaneous and authentic demonstration
in a Muslim country was hailed as a beacon of hope. If only things
were so simple. It would make a great script for a Hollywood movie.
The reality is more complicated. The demonstration was not in response
to the imminent election of an Islamist government sworn to enact
conservative religious laws. It was in response to the last-minute
nomination of a venerated politician, Abdullah Gu, to the largely
ceremonial role of president. The protest forced him to step down. Gu,
who had been the country's foreign minister and played a significant
role in Turkey's negotiations over membership of the European Union,
had always had his eyes set on being prime minister.
But the incumbent prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, put Gu's name
forward as a presidential candidate.
What was so wrong with that? Gu belongs to the Justice and Development
Party (AKP), a Muslim democratic party, but it is a million miles from
what we would normally understand as "Islamist": guided by clerics,
aiming to enact and enforce religious laws. This is not what the AKP
is about, and certainly not a reflection of Gu's career. Analysts in
Turkey and the EU have praised the government of which he was a senior
member for enacting the most liberal reforms Turkey has experienced,
in both the economic and the social spheres.
However, Turkey is a country with shifting identities; Muslim and
European, part of the Middle East yet one of Israel's strongest
military allies, Kurdish and Turkish, democratic yet beholden to
the military. These contradictory voices cannot project fully in a
monolithic system where there is one identity - secularism - and one
arbiter of political power - the army.
Impressive as the demonstration in Istanbul was, it was the voice of
the country's urban and middle-class elite.
Gu's party represents a dying political trend in Muslim countries
worldwide. Like similar parties in Algeria, Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt,
the AKP is capitalising on disaffection with political systems that
have monopolised power, whether it is the army in Turkey and Pakistan,
or family dynasties such as the Assads in Syria and the Mubaraks
in Egypt. The emergence of these political parties that appeal to
professional and democratic Muslims has been perceived as a threat
to stability, and they have been prevented repeatedly from competing
fairly in elections - through vote-rigging, military intervention,
imprisonment and intimidation.
The annulment of the polls that brought the Islamic Salvation Front to
power in Algeria in the mid-1990s by the intervention of the army is a
warning of what happens when moderate, democratically elected Muslim
parties are prevented from taking office. By the most conservative
estimates, the ensuing decade-long civil war left at least 60,000
people dead.
There is a nauseating hypocrisy to the way liberals in the west have
applauded the army's intervention in Turkey. This is the same army
that the left has criticised for decades for its policies towards the
Kurds; the same army it has condemned for its unwillingness to admit
to the Armenian genocide or permit it to be discussed. The west may
be reassured by the army's actions, but divisions within Turkey will
deepen, and with this crackdown, another country joins the list of
those where moderate Muslims have no voice.
Comments can be sent at http://www.newstatesman.com/200705140019
Rageh Omaar
New Statesman, UK
May 10 2007
Listen RSS A spontaneous demonstration in favour of secularism in
Turkey was hailed as a beacon of hope but the reality is much more
complicated
It was, without doubt, an impressive demonstration of people power,
in a country on the edge of Europe that seeks to become a part of it.
Almost a million Turks marched in Istanbul to show support for their
secular republic. In an age when many in liberal, secular democracies
in the west fear what they perceive as the relentless rise of militant
political Islam, the sight of a spontaneous and authentic demonstration
in a Muslim country was hailed as a beacon of hope. If only things
were so simple. It would make a great script for a Hollywood movie.
The reality is more complicated. The demonstration was not in response
to the imminent election of an Islamist government sworn to enact
conservative religious laws. It was in response to the last-minute
nomination of a venerated politician, Abdullah Gu, to the largely
ceremonial role of president. The protest forced him to step down. Gu,
who had been the country's foreign minister and played a significant
role in Turkey's negotiations over membership of the European Union,
had always had his eyes set on being prime minister.
But the incumbent prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, put Gu's name
forward as a presidential candidate.
What was so wrong with that? Gu belongs to the Justice and Development
Party (AKP), a Muslim democratic party, but it is a million miles from
what we would normally understand as "Islamist": guided by clerics,
aiming to enact and enforce religious laws. This is not what the AKP
is about, and certainly not a reflection of Gu's career. Analysts in
Turkey and the EU have praised the government of which he was a senior
member for enacting the most liberal reforms Turkey has experienced,
in both the economic and the social spheres.
However, Turkey is a country with shifting identities; Muslim and
European, part of the Middle East yet one of Israel's strongest
military allies, Kurdish and Turkish, democratic yet beholden to
the military. These contradictory voices cannot project fully in a
monolithic system where there is one identity - secularism - and one
arbiter of political power - the army.
Impressive as the demonstration in Istanbul was, it was the voice of
the country's urban and middle-class elite.
Gu's party represents a dying political trend in Muslim countries
worldwide. Like similar parties in Algeria, Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt,
the AKP is capitalising on disaffection with political systems that
have monopolised power, whether it is the army in Turkey and Pakistan,
or family dynasties such as the Assads in Syria and the Mubaraks
in Egypt. The emergence of these political parties that appeal to
professional and democratic Muslims has been perceived as a threat
to stability, and they have been prevented repeatedly from competing
fairly in elections - through vote-rigging, military intervention,
imprisonment and intimidation.
The annulment of the polls that brought the Islamic Salvation Front to
power in Algeria in the mid-1990s by the intervention of the army is a
warning of what happens when moderate, democratically elected Muslim
parties are prevented from taking office. By the most conservative
estimates, the ensuing decade-long civil war left at least 60,000
people dead.
There is a nauseating hypocrisy to the way liberals in the west have
applauded the army's intervention in Turkey. This is the same army
that the left has criticised for decades for its policies towards the
Kurds; the same army it has condemned for its unwillingness to admit
to the Armenian genocide or permit it to be discussed. The west may
be reassured by the army's actions, but divisions within Turkey will
deepen, and with this crackdown, another country joins the list of
those where moderate Muslims have no voice.
Comments can be sent at http://www.newstatesman.com/200705140019