Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
May 8 2013
Turkey's dilemma
MARKAR ESAYAN
[email protected]
The state has meant everything in Turkey until very recently. When
they set out, Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) and his friends believed there
was no public that would fit the country they imagined to establish.
They were positivists and radical modernists, but unlike its Western
precedents, the establishment process of their regime lacked a popular
movement or backing.
Here, by "backing," I am not referring to the sympathy people would
feel toward Mustafa Kemal for saving the country. That would be
unfair. What mattered was how preferences would be expressed during
the establishment of the country in the wake of its salvation. The
public was never a reference in the formation of the state and the
regime. Moreover, the public was perceived as the most serious threat
to the newly established regime. Various methods for exerting
considerable pressure on this perceived threat were developed and
implemented to avert this risk with specific reference to
"revolutions."
The state was strengthened at the expense of the public in order to
create the Kemalists' imaginary public and trim away the "unwanted"
qualities of the actual public. Of course, I am aware of the cliché of
referring to the "conditions prevalent at that time." Kemalists tend
to exculpate the inhuman practices imposed at that time by the regime
on non-Muslim religious minorities, Kurds, Muslims and Alevis by
stressing the "conditions prevalent at that time." Thus, we are forced
to perceive the violence and racism in Turkey as "acceptable" and
mandatory at a time when fascism was on the rise and trying to invade
the world.
But it is a big lie. The world didn't consist solely of Germany or
Italy in the 1920s, the 1930s or the 1940s. Indeed, there were many
good models around the world, and those good countries eventually beat
Germany. Initially, Turkey leaned toward Germany and turned a blind
eye to the slaughter of Jews, but later, as the situation in the world
changed, it also changed its position and declared war on Germany.
The fascism-tainted administrative practices seen during the
single-party era in Turkey actually amounted to a conscious choice. It
was, indeed, a matter of choice, as an authoritarian and occasionally
pragmatic system was established deliberately. Social engineering was
the regime's leitmotif. This was because they never liked the public.
They assumed they could build a monolithic union out of this
"reactionary, hybrid" public. This was salient fascism and every
social group felt the pressure to varying degrees. It was obvious that
such a mentality would strengthen the state excessively, see the state
as a tool for disciplining the public and claim a monopoly on its
benefits. And this was exactly what happened.
The solution to centuries-old questions stemming from the preferences
of that state was left to today's Turkey. The Kurdish, Alevi and
Armenian issues, the Cyprus matter as well as the problems related to
the Jacobin secularist mentality, gender discrimination, poverty,
social injustice, culture of violence and many other problems are the
products of this mentality.
Naturally, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), which
distanced itself from such a state mentality, in 2002 assumed the
identity of a founding party. The process of rectifying the errors
made during the initial establishment followed a troubled route.
Pandora's box was opened and revealed a number of troublesome matters.
This is apparently not an easy task. But it is both hard and easy
since the government is backed by the general public and the
Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times. Furthermore, the wrongs of the
past are so striking that even the Kemalist and pro-status quo
opposition cannot defend them openly. Instead, they believe they can
convince people to stand against change by using empty fears.
They wait for an evil miracle or chaos to occur. But that is not going
to happen. If they had realized that the process was really strong,
they could have joined the game and represented their voters' base.
But as long as their voters cannot overcome their concerns and their
fears of loss and return to our time swiftly, their representatives
will not change.
So Turkey's change will, as is the case with most changes, continue to
exhibit a contradictory nature rife with polarizations: extraordinary
advances followed by brief pauses.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=314867
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
May 8 2013
Turkey's dilemma
MARKAR ESAYAN
[email protected]
The state has meant everything in Turkey until very recently. When
they set out, Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) and his friends believed there
was no public that would fit the country they imagined to establish.
They were positivists and radical modernists, but unlike its Western
precedents, the establishment process of their regime lacked a popular
movement or backing.
Here, by "backing," I am not referring to the sympathy people would
feel toward Mustafa Kemal for saving the country. That would be
unfair. What mattered was how preferences would be expressed during
the establishment of the country in the wake of its salvation. The
public was never a reference in the formation of the state and the
regime. Moreover, the public was perceived as the most serious threat
to the newly established regime. Various methods for exerting
considerable pressure on this perceived threat were developed and
implemented to avert this risk with specific reference to
"revolutions."
The state was strengthened at the expense of the public in order to
create the Kemalists' imaginary public and trim away the "unwanted"
qualities of the actual public. Of course, I am aware of the cliché of
referring to the "conditions prevalent at that time." Kemalists tend
to exculpate the inhuman practices imposed at that time by the regime
on non-Muslim religious minorities, Kurds, Muslims and Alevis by
stressing the "conditions prevalent at that time." Thus, we are forced
to perceive the violence and racism in Turkey as "acceptable" and
mandatory at a time when fascism was on the rise and trying to invade
the world.
But it is a big lie. The world didn't consist solely of Germany or
Italy in the 1920s, the 1930s or the 1940s. Indeed, there were many
good models around the world, and those good countries eventually beat
Germany. Initially, Turkey leaned toward Germany and turned a blind
eye to the slaughter of Jews, but later, as the situation in the world
changed, it also changed its position and declared war on Germany.
The fascism-tainted administrative practices seen during the
single-party era in Turkey actually amounted to a conscious choice. It
was, indeed, a matter of choice, as an authoritarian and occasionally
pragmatic system was established deliberately. Social engineering was
the regime's leitmotif. This was because they never liked the public.
They assumed they could build a monolithic union out of this
"reactionary, hybrid" public. This was salient fascism and every
social group felt the pressure to varying degrees. It was obvious that
such a mentality would strengthen the state excessively, see the state
as a tool for disciplining the public and claim a monopoly on its
benefits. And this was exactly what happened.
The solution to centuries-old questions stemming from the preferences
of that state was left to today's Turkey. The Kurdish, Alevi and
Armenian issues, the Cyprus matter as well as the problems related to
the Jacobin secularist mentality, gender discrimination, poverty,
social injustice, culture of violence and many other problems are the
products of this mentality.
Naturally, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), which
distanced itself from such a state mentality, in 2002 assumed the
identity of a founding party. The process of rectifying the errors
made during the initial establishment followed a troubled route.
Pandora's box was opened and revealed a number of troublesome matters.
This is apparently not an easy task. But it is both hard and easy
since the government is backed by the general public and the
Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times. Furthermore, the wrongs of the
past are so striking that even the Kemalist and pro-status quo
opposition cannot defend them openly. Instead, they believe they can
convince people to stand against change by using empty fears.
They wait for an evil miracle or chaos to occur. But that is not going
to happen. If they had realized that the process was really strong,
they could have joined the game and represented their voters' base.
But as long as their voters cannot overcome their concerns and their
fears of loss and return to our time swiftly, their representatives
will not change.
So Turkey's change will, as is the case with most changes, continue to
exhibit a contradictory nature rife with polarizations: extraordinary
advances followed by brief pauses.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=314867
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress