Tweet
Hurriyet, Turkey
Jan 2 2010
Ergenekon: Whose side are you on?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Ã-zgür Ã-Ä?ret
ISTANBUL - Hürriyet Daily News
The Ergenekon case has expanded beyond the judicial system and
politics to deepen an already extant societal polarization triggered
by the assumption of power by the Justice and Development Party.
Vociferous debates on the investigation of an allegedly shadowy gang
accused of planning to topple the government have not simply dominated
political and media agendas, they have also ruined long-lasting
friendships in quarrels unmatched since the 1980 coup
This year, I had quarrels with many friends; some lifelong friends
from childhood. You might say, so what? Everyone, have fights with
friends every now and then, but you make up after a certain period of
time.
In my case, the discussions were so intense that we either avoid
talking politics anymore or deleted their numbers from cell phones and
erased them as `friends' on social networking platforms like Facebook.
The main subject that destroyed long-standing friendships was not
personal at all. The advent of the religiously-rooted Justice and
Development Party, or AKP, had already led to ruptures in society.
However, the investigations that started with the Ergenekon case have
intensified the polarization.
As a member of the so-called apolitical generation raised after the
military coup of 1980, I hardly discussed the political state of
Turkey with people I have shared my life with, and when we did, it was
all shallow.
`Politics' was a dirty word anyway; it reminded many of the days
before the coup when people killed each other on the streets for
belonging to the rival `leftist' or `rightist' camp. Politics was
boring and we were warned by our elders not to get involved.
Things started changing when the cadre of the incumbent AKP broke away
from the pro-Islamist Welfare party, or RP, which was closed by the
Constitutional Court in 1997, and founded their own party in 2001. AKP
members entered the political scene with the motto that they had
changed their Islamist ways and were now just part of a conservative
political platform.
This has met with great doubt from secularist circles. Society was
divided among those who believed the AKP had changed and was doing the
reforms the country needed and those who believed the AKP had a secret
agenda to erode the secular structure of the state.
AKP skeptics argued that the party would chase away secularists from
the fundamental institutions of the state and replace them with their
own supporters. The election of Abdullah Gül, one of AKP's prominent
leaders to the presidency, fueled the debate. One of the pillars of
the Republic was lost to the AKP, secularists believed.
The Ergenekon investigations that began in June 2007 were seen as part
of the party's policy of weakening the secularists. In these
investigations, retired top generals were called for testimony for the
first time in republican history, representing a new milestone in
Turkish political history.
For some, this was a good step to get the military under civilian
control, a basic requisite for democratization. For others, however,
it was an unfair and intentional blow to the military, which is the
guardian of the secular state.
The debates in society got so intense that friends, relatives,
siblings, spouses and colleagues realized ` and usually ended up
terrorized by ` how little they knew of their loved ones' political
stances.
How did it all begin?
The Ergenekon case started after the discovery of 27 hand grenades on
June 12, 2007, in a shanty house belonging to a retired
noncommissioned officer in Istanbul 's Ã`mraniye district. The grenades
were found to be the same ones used in attacks on the daily
Cumhuriyet's Istanbul offices in 2006.
The finding led to scores of arrests, putting more than 100
journalists, writers, gang leaders, scholars, businessmen and
politicians into detention in what became a terror investigation to
stop the alleged ultranationalist, shadowy gang known as Ergenekon. In
the later stages of the investigation, those under custody were
accused of planning to topple the government by staging a coup in 2009
by initially spreading chaos and mayhem.
Earlier bombings of daily Cumhuriyet, the murder of Turkish-Armenian
journalist Hrant Dink, the murder of the Council of State's top judge
and alleged plans for the assassination of high-profile figures in
Turkish politics are sometimes associated with the case.
The supporters, the opponents and those in-between
The main opposition Republican People's Party, or CHP, condemned it
from the beginning as `a campaign to silence the opposition,' while
the Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP, has tried to remain as silent
as possible.
The recently disbanded Democratic Society Party, or DTP, backed the
Ergenekon process for a period of time because they wanted to tie
unsolved murders in eastern Turkey during the 1980s and 1990s to the
case, yet the killings have rarely been mentioned in recent months.
In the media, columnists from dailies known to be supporters of the
AKP, namely Taraf, Zaman, Yeni Å?afak, Star, Sabah and Bugün argued
that the case was very serious and was useful in terms of breaking
taboos in Turkey, thereby leading to further democratization.
Opponents of the case have circled wagons around newspapers
Cumhuriyet, Hürriyet, Vatan, Sözcü and AkÅ?am, arguing that the
allegations are baseless and devoid of serious proof.
However, as the case progressed in 2009, both camps have lost strength
while the gray area grew in numbers. Some of the people who initially
supported the judicial process openly began having second thoughts
after the obvious legal irregularities that occurred during the
investigations.
Others who were skeptical in the beginning started to take the matter
more seriously as more and more illegal acts from certain officials
were revealed.
Today, it is fair to say that the majority is now in the gray area.
That, however, has not reduced the polarization.
How come, one may ask? Logically, as the number of skeptics increased
on each side, this would have led to healthier debates. But this is
not the case.
First, the case has become so complicated that it is extremely
difficult to keep up with its developments anymore; second, people
have stopped bothering to listen.
Criticize one single action of the military and you immediately become
pro-AKP; conversely, say one word in favor of a single detainee and
you are a coup supporter.
After that, anything else you say is likely to fall on deaf ears `
even with people with whom you agreed on other issues. I know this
from dozens of examples I experienced in 2009.
And so it continues
It would be fair to say the case will not conclude next year. The
common question shared by both camps, "Where is Turkey headed to,"
will not suddenly provide a climactic answer.
Many other events are also developing at a fantastic speed in Turkey,
and these may draw the map for the future. Not everything is related
to Ergenekon, yet is clear that the case will continue to be an
important part of Turkey's agenda ` whether the debates on the case is
settled or not.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Jan 2 2010
Ergenekon: Whose side are you on?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Ã-zgür Ã-Ä?ret
ISTANBUL - Hürriyet Daily News
The Ergenekon case has expanded beyond the judicial system and
politics to deepen an already extant societal polarization triggered
by the assumption of power by the Justice and Development Party.
Vociferous debates on the investigation of an allegedly shadowy gang
accused of planning to topple the government have not simply dominated
political and media agendas, they have also ruined long-lasting
friendships in quarrels unmatched since the 1980 coup
This year, I had quarrels with many friends; some lifelong friends
from childhood. You might say, so what? Everyone, have fights with
friends every now and then, but you make up after a certain period of
time.
In my case, the discussions were so intense that we either avoid
talking politics anymore or deleted their numbers from cell phones and
erased them as `friends' on social networking platforms like Facebook.
The main subject that destroyed long-standing friendships was not
personal at all. The advent of the religiously-rooted Justice and
Development Party, or AKP, had already led to ruptures in society.
However, the investigations that started with the Ergenekon case have
intensified the polarization.
As a member of the so-called apolitical generation raised after the
military coup of 1980, I hardly discussed the political state of
Turkey with people I have shared my life with, and when we did, it was
all shallow.
`Politics' was a dirty word anyway; it reminded many of the days
before the coup when people killed each other on the streets for
belonging to the rival `leftist' or `rightist' camp. Politics was
boring and we were warned by our elders not to get involved.
Things started changing when the cadre of the incumbent AKP broke away
from the pro-Islamist Welfare party, or RP, which was closed by the
Constitutional Court in 1997, and founded their own party in 2001. AKP
members entered the political scene with the motto that they had
changed their Islamist ways and were now just part of a conservative
political platform.
This has met with great doubt from secularist circles. Society was
divided among those who believed the AKP had changed and was doing the
reforms the country needed and those who believed the AKP had a secret
agenda to erode the secular structure of the state.
AKP skeptics argued that the party would chase away secularists from
the fundamental institutions of the state and replace them with their
own supporters. The election of Abdullah Gül, one of AKP's prominent
leaders to the presidency, fueled the debate. One of the pillars of
the Republic was lost to the AKP, secularists believed.
The Ergenekon investigations that began in June 2007 were seen as part
of the party's policy of weakening the secularists. In these
investigations, retired top generals were called for testimony for the
first time in republican history, representing a new milestone in
Turkish political history.
For some, this was a good step to get the military under civilian
control, a basic requisite for democratization. For others, however,
it was an unfair and intentional blow to the military, which is the
guardian of the secular state.
The debates in society got so intense that friends, relatives,
siblings, spouses and colleagues realized ` and usually ended up
terrorized by ` how little they knew of their loved ones' political
stances.
How did it all begin?
The Ergenekon case started after the discovery of 27 hand grenades on
June 12, 2007, in a shanty house belonging to a retired
noncommissioned officer in Istanbul 's Ã`mraniye district. The grenades
were found to be the same ones used in attacks on the daily
Cumhuriyet's Istanbul offices in 2006.
The finding led to scores of arrests, putting more than 100
journalists, writers, gang leaders, scholars, businessmen and
politicians into detention in what became a terror investigation to
stop the alleged ultranationalist, shadowy gang known as Ergenekon. In
the later stages of the investigation, those under custody were
accused of planning to topple the government by staging a coup in 2009
by initially spreading chaos and mayhem.
Earlier bombings of daily Cumhuriyet, the murder of Turkish-Armenian
journalist Hrant Dink, the murder of the Council of State's top judge
and alleged plans for the assassination of high-profile figures in
Turkish politics are sometimes associated with the case.
The supporters, the opponents and those in-between
The main opposition Republican People's Party, or CHP, condemned it
from the beginning as `a campaign to silence the opposition,' while
the Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP, has tried to remain as silent
as possible.
The recently disbanded Democratic Society Party, or DTP, backed the
Ergenekon process for a period of time because they wanted to tie
unsolved murders in eastern Turkey during the 1980s and 1990s to the
case, yet the killings have rarely been mentioned in recent months.
In the media, columnists from dailies known to be supporters of the
AKP, namely Taraf, Zaman, Yeni Å?afak, Star, Sabah and Bugün argued
that the case was very serious and was useful in terms of breaking
taboos in Turkey, thereby leading to further democratization.
Opponents of the case have circled wagons around newspapers
Cumhuriyet, Hürriyet, Vatan, Sözcü and AkÅ?am, arguing that the
allegations are baseless and devoid of serious proof.
However, as the case progressed in 2009, both camps have lost strength
while the gray area grew in numbers. Some of the people who initially
supported the judicial process openly began having second thoughts
after the obvious legal irregularities that occurred during the
investigations.
Others who were skeptical in the beginning started to take the matter
more seriously as more and more illegal acts from certain officials
were revealed.
Today, it is fair to say that the majority is now in the gray area.
That, however, has not reduced the polarization.
How come, one may ask? Logically, as the number of skeptics increased
on each side, this would have led to healthier debates. But this is
not the case.
First, the case has become so complicated that it is extremely
difficult to keep up with its developments anymore; second, people
have stopped bothering to listen.
Criticize one single action of the military and you immediately become
pro-AKP; conversely, say one word in favor of a single detainee and
you are a coup supporter.
After that, anything else you say is likely to fall on deaf ears `
even with people with whom you agreed on other issues. I know this
from dozens of examples I experienced in 2009.
And so it continues
It would be fair to say the case will not conclude next year. The
common question shared by both camps, "Where is Turkey headed to,"
will not suddenly provide a climactic answer.
Many other events are also developing at a fantastic speed in Turkey,
and these may draw the map for the future. Not everything is related
to Ergenekon, yet is clear that the case will continue to be an
important part of Turkey's agenda ` whether the debates on the case is
settled or not.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress