Tweet
MILITARY SECULARISM'S ENFORCER IN TURKEY
Kavi Chongkittavorn The Nation Istanbul
Nation Multimedia, Thailand
May 15 2007
Who would know Turkey better than Suleyman Demirel, the former prime
minister and president of Turkey?
He was succinct when he addressed the annual assembly of the
International Press Institute (IPI) over the weekend. He lashed out at
some European countries that are trying to stop Turkey from attaining
EU membership. He said the Turkish people had been disappointed with
the way the EU had treated their country and that this has considerably
reduced public support for the move.
As an EU member, he pointed out Turkey's "soft power" - being
democratic and transparent - would increase and positively influence
its neighbours and eventually enhance peace and international
security. Obviously, he linked EU membership with democracy in
Turkey. His country, he reiterated, had kept the dream of EU membership
alive against all odds since 1963.
However, he avoided commenting on the current political situation,
which is a cause of great concern in Europe these days, following the
veiled threat by the Turkish military to intervene if the government
of Recep Tayyip Erdogan did not call off presidential elections.
These were likely to install Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as
president. But the military fears the ruling Justice and Development
Party (AKP), with control of the presidency, and subsequently
parliament in the next election, would weaken Turkey as a secular
state.
Everybody here knows when to tow the military's line. The Turkish
military has a long history of intervention in civilian affairs when
it comes to ensuring that Turkish society remains secular.
Over the weekend, a million people demonstrated in the city of Izmir
on the Aegean coast in support of Turkey remaining a secular state.
Izmir belongs to opposition parties and is outside the AKP's reach.
Previously, similar shows of support for the conservative government
occurred in Erzurum, way out in the country's far east. Ertugrul
Ozkok, editor-in-chief of the daily Hurriyet newspaper, said these
demonstrations show how polarised Turkey is at the moment. He said that
extreme minority groups from both sides had exploited the situation
for their own ends.
What was interesting was the absence of reporting and comment on the
role of military in the latest political crisis. Newspapers here,
both vernacular and English language, avoid touching on the subject
of the military. Indeed, the issue remains the media's biggest taboo.
It must be said, though, that the Turkish military shares with
the Thai military an overzealous concern for democracy; both armed
forces seem to feel they have to take political control. But the Thai
military has been subject of media and public criticism. Over here,
anybody who dares to criticise the military would receive little
mercy. My Turkish journalist friends did not like it even when I
tried to compare the democratic controls of the Thai and Turkish
militaries. They see the military's intervention as necessary and
providing a guarantee that Turkey remains secular. The military has
been prevailed upon to protect the secular state. Most importantly,
the Turkish people have come to accept this reality. Andrew Mango,
an expert on Turkey, reiterated that the Turkish military was not
all bad. Its job was to protect the state and secularism, he said.
Many are hopeful that Turkey's admission to the EU would weaken the
military's interference and further democratise the country. But
quite a few people I talked to believe that the military does not
want to relinquish its power, especially now.
Bassam Tibi, a professor of international relations at the University
of Gottingen, said that as long as civil society organisations in
Turkey remained weak and inefficient, the military would continue to
serve as the backbone of society. He believes that the military will
return to the barracks when the civil sector is strong.
Already, EU demands for further openness and democratisation in Turkey
have met with strong resistance, which has provided further ammunition
for nationalists and fundamentalists. Take for instance, the notorious
Article 301 of Turkey's Penal Code, which has been used to prosecute
anyone who insults Turkey and "Turkish-ness", whatever that means. This
broadly defined concept has instilled a culture of fear among the
country's intellectuals and journalists. According to the Vienna-based
IPI, over 60 journalists, publishers and writers have faced criminal
charges under this draconian law. At the moment, 26 journalists
are in jail. In January, Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian journalist,
was murdered followed comments on Turkish-Armenian relations.
Turkey's democracy has been interrupted several times before in its
history. As with the development of Thai democracy, there have been
hiccups here and there with military interventions. But in the end,
the progress and prosperity that the Turkish people enjoy will somehow
dictate the shape of politics here in the future.
The differences between the Islamists and secularists can be managed.
Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, used to say that one does
not need to go to religious scholars to learn what Islam is, because
whatever is good for the country, is good for Islam.
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/16/opi nion/opinion_30034328.php
Kavi Chongkittavorn The Nation Istanbul
Nation Multimedia, Thailand
May 15 2007
Who would know Turkey better than Suleyman Demirel, the former prime
minister and president of Turkey?
He was succinct when he addressed the annual assembly of the
International Press Institute (IPI) over the weekend. He lashed out at
some European countries that are trying to stop Turkey from attaining
EU membership. He said the Turkish people had been disappointed with
the way the EU had treated their country and that this has considerably
reduced public support for the move.
As an EU member, he pointed out Turkey's "soft power" - being
democratic and transparent - would increase and positively influence
its neighbours and eventually enhance peace and international
security. Obviously, he linked EU membership with democracy in
Turkey. His country, he reiterated, had kept the dream of EU membership
alive against all odds since 1963.
However, he avoided commenting on the current political situation,
which is a cause of great concern in Europe these days, following the
veiled threat by the Turkish military to intervene if the government
of Recep Tayyip Erdogan did not call off presidential elections.
These were likely to install Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as
president. But the military fears the ruling Justice and Development
Party (AKP), with control of the presidency, and subsequently
parliament in the next election, would weaken Turkey as a secular
state.
Everybody here knows when to tow the military's line. The Turkish
military has a long history of intervention in civilian affairs when
it comes to ensuring that Turkish society remains secular.
Over the weekend, a million people demonstrated in the city of Izmir
on the Aegean coast in support of Turkey remaining a secular state.
Izmir belongs to opposition parties and is outside the AKP's reach.
Previously, similar shows of support for the conservative government
occurred in Erzurum, way out in the country's far east. Ertugrul
Ozkok, editor-in-chief of the daily Hurriyet newspaper, said these
demonstrations show how polarised Turkey is at the moment. He said that
extreme minority groups from both sides had exploited the situation
for their own ends.
What was interesting was the absence of reporting and comment on the
role of military in the latest political crisis. Newspapers here,
both vernacular and English language, avoid touching on the subject
of the military. Indeed, the issue remains the media's biggest taboo.
It must be said, though, that the Turkish military shares with
the Thai military an overzealous concern for democracy; both armed
forces seem to feel they have to take political control. But the Thai
military has been subject of media and public criticism. Over here,
anybody who dares to criticise the military would receive little
mercy. My Turkish journalist friends did not like it even when I
tried to compare the democratic controls of the Thai and Turkish
militaries. They see the military's intervention as necessary and
providing a guarantee that Turkey remains secular. The military has
been prevailed upon to protect the secular state. Most importantly,
the Turkish people have come to accept this reality. Andrew Mango,
an expert on Turkey, reiterated that the Turkish military was not
all bad. Its job was to protect the state and secularism, he said.
Many are hopeful that Turkey's admission to the EU would weaken the
military's interference and further democratise the country. But
quite a few people I talked to believe that the military does not
want to relinquish its power, especially now.
Bassam Tibi, a professor of international relations at the University
of Gottingen, said that as long as civil society organisations in
Turkey remained weak and inefficient, the military would continue to
serve as the backbone of society. He believes that the military will
return to the barracks when the civil sector is strong.
Already, EU demands for further openness and democratisation in Turkey
have met with strong resistance, which has provided further ammunition
for nationalists and fundamentalists. Take for instance, the notorious
Article 301 of Turkey's Penal Code, which has been used to prosecute
anyone who insults Turkey and "Turkish-ness", whatever that means. This
broadly defined concept has instilled a culture of fear among the
country's intellectuals and journalists. According to the Vienna-based
IPI, over 60 journalists, publishers and writers have faced criminal
charges under this draconian law. At the moment, 26 journalists
are in jail. In January, Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian journalist,
was murdered followed comments on Turkish-Armenian relations.
Turkey's democracy has been interrupted several times before in its
history. As with the development of Thai democracy, there have been
hiccups here and there with military interventions. But in the end,
the progress and prosperity that the Turkish people enjoy will somehow
dictate the shape of politics here in the future.
The differences between the Islamists and secularists can be managed.
Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, used to say that one does
not need to go to religious scholars to learn what Islam is, because
whatever is good for the country, is good for Islam.
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/16/opi nion/opinion_30034328.php