Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: A Century Of Mistakes Followed By A Decade Of Change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ANKARA: A Century Of Mistakes Followed By A Decade Of Change

    A CENTURY OF MISTAKES FOLLOWED BY A DECADE OF CHANGE

    Today's Zaman, Turkey
    May 31 2013

    MARKAR ESAYAN
    [email protected]

    Turkey has been changing radically in recent years. The dynamic for
    this change has been created by two large groups, the devout Muslim
    base and Kurds.

    Serious mistakes and wrong choices made during the years of the
    formation of the republic wound up condemning Turkey to nearly a
    century in a straightjacket. Yes, a new country was formed, but upon
    an ideology that rejected the very people of the nation. I am not
    someone who views the republic years as categorically negative. But
    the essential character of something often determines direction and
    choice. And I can say with ease that the Kemalist republic had a
    malevolent character. We still see now that mistakes made in that
    era are slowing us down.

    Where the minorities are concerned, for example ...

    The final stage of the Ottoman era was an unmitigated disaster for
    everyone in the empire. As a matter of fact, the end of the 19th
    century and first half of the 20th century were like a living hell for
    minorities. And the same sort of dark periods that were experienced
    in Turkey during these times happened all over the world. When the
    new Republic of Turkey was formed, the Armenians, Greeks, Arameans,
    Jewish people, and other non-Muslims who had managed to survive all
    dreamed of a new beginning. And they were right to get caught up in
    this dream. Because after all, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and his men all
    asserted that they were forming a modern, secular and democratic new
    country, and received the praise of the world in doing so. And while
    they maintained this about the new country, it really didn't turn
    out that way in practice.

    Peace with PUK

    First, peace was made with the bloody-handed members of the Committee
    of Union and Progress (CUP) in 1914 and 1915, with the bureaucracy of
    the state being turned over to their hands. At this point, everyone
    had to be a Turk, and embrace the identity given to them by the state.

    And then the feelings of guilt from 1915 were transformed into hatred
    for Armenians and other minorities. No more large massacres could
    be carried out, but the minorities could be brought to their knees
    economically-speaking, with constant harassment from the state. The
    population was on its way to becoming more homogenous, as assimilating
    Kurds and Muslims was easy business anyway.

    While Mustafa Kemal Ataturk asserted that he was forming a people's
    republic, the real truth was that he was forming a republic that
    belonged to a privileged minority. Minorities were fleeing abroad
    due to economic harassment and incidents like those that took place
    in Thrace in 1934. How interesting it was then that the Lausanne
    Treaty, seen as the sacred forming text of the republic, was being so
    regularly violated by the Turkish state itself. And in the meantime,
    a new state religion was created, one that only appeared to be Muslim,
    but which had been purged of spirituality and was quite secular
    and used the Sunni belief system as the center. It was actually a
    new religion. Yes, the Kemalists had created this religion and to
    spread it, they formed the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Homilies
    designated by the state were read in all the mosques of the country,
    with religion being used as a tool to promote the state's ideology. The
    goal here was to see Muslims no longer as a "threat," but to instead
    "civilize" them and assimilate their masses.

    As for the West, for as long as Turkey stayed within the parameters
    of the West club, it didn't matter what sorts of violations of human
    right were being carried out.

    The Muslims had pulled back. But it appeared that the Kurds were
    going to be a big problem. There were so many of them, and they
    were generally quite religious. In fact, some of the most important
    religious figures that were preventing this new state-created
    religion from taking root throughout the region were Kurds like
    Said Nursi. It appeared the Kurds were both racially and religiously
    speaking resisting assimilation. In the 1924 Sheikh Said rebellion,
    the 1930 Agrı rebellion and the 1937-1938 Dersim "uprising," the
    state rained down great tyranny on the people, later trying to sell
    these incidents as serious uprisings that needed to be quelled. What
    was really going on though was a serious resistance to the founding
    principles of the regime, as well as to societal engineering. And,
    as occurred in Dersim, state violence led to more protests, and more
    protests led to thousands of deaths.

    There is a general sort of hypocrisy that exists in Turkey. The
    above-described stories were always treated as though they had occurred
    in different eras and different countries. Ataturk was kept separate
    from any nasty business, with mistakes that he made only thrown into
    the public arena after his death. As it was told, everything was just
    fine until 1938, but Ataturk's immoral successors ruined everything
    that had been going so well. In fact, everything that went wrong
    was blamed on İsmet İnönu, while Ataturk was kept clean. And
    when really pressed, those holding to this argument point to the
    "conditions of the era." Some even claim, "With the Jewish Holocaust
    going on in Europe, what took place in Turkey could even be seen as
    democracy." As though the entire world was populated solely by Nazis
    at the time, or that there were no examples of democratic countries.

    No one can claim that Kemalism was not able to create a society, or
    that Kemalist social engineering was a complete failure. And what's
    more, this was not only true for those city-dwellers getting by because
    of the state. Everyone, from those able to build homes on free state
    plots of land to those richer folks able to impound minority goods,
    got their share of benefits from Kemalism. As for the Alevis, despite
    their experience from the Dersim massacre, they were scared off by
    radical Islamism, tying themselves completely in response to this
    to the Kemalist state, and its party, the CHP. The reasoning here
    seemed to be that while the Kemalists might brush shoulders with
    violence every now and then -- as seen in Dersim --this was nothing
    compared to Sharia, which held the potential (thought the Alevis) to
    completely eliminate them. The state did not hang back from keeping
    this fear alive either, using countless provocations to achieve this
    aim. By turning Turks, Kurds, Alevis, Muslims, Armenians, secularists,
    leftists and so on against one another, Kemalism was easily able to
    construct a guardian authority over the people of the country.

    The Kemalist guardian authority's advantage

    On the cusp of the millenium, Turkey experienced an open-ended
    post-modern coup. During the coup of 1960, Prime Minister Adnan
    Menderes had been hung, with clashes between rightists and leftists
    leading to the deaths of thousands of youths. It was always the
    Kemalist guardian authority that emerged in an advantageous position
    from these incidents.

    So who was to change the order of things?

    The great social power forces left far from the center and the
    ruling seats were the Muslims and the Kurds. There was nothing else
    left. The number of minorities in Turkey had shrunk to one thousandth
    of their previous numbers and had turned inwards in reaction to the
    events of the past. The Alevis were paralyzed as a result of the
    false "Sunni" danger, and their own splintering. In the meantime,
    let us add that area citizens did in fact voluntarily support the
    state-rooted provocations -- like in Madımak, an attack in which
    Alevis were targeted and killed. After all, our goal here is not to
    aestheticize history. There is still a widespread antipathy towards
    Alevis throughout Turkey, and this is a factor which has always worked
    out very well for the deep state and its business.

    In the wake of the Feb. 28, 1997 post modern coup, a respectful
    uprising against Necmettin Erbakan took place in the ranks of the
    reformist cadres of the overturned Welfare Party (RP), after which the
    Justice and Development Party (AK Party) was formed. The founders of
    this new party, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Abdullah Gul and Bulent Arınc
    carried out a serious set of self-criticisms, in light of lessons
    learned from the 1997 coup process. What was emerging was an Anatolian
    Muslim voter threshold more at peace with the West, taking more of a
    leadership role in democracy, and open to change as well as to reform.

    Millions of people kept at arm's length from power throughout the
    history of the republic thus far suddenly had a voice, without having
    to turn to violence, and without losing their patience. In its first
    election, the AK Party took power on Nov. 3, 2002, picking up huge
    levels of support from Kurds as well as secular democrats. A silent
    revolution had thus begun in Turkey. The revolution that had begun was
    one to rely not on violence and upheaval, but on democratic methods
    and parliamentary representation. Of course, it was also a period
    that would require some time and patience.

    Now the AK Party is headed into its fourth election. And the prime
    minister has taken a great risk, starting an historical initiative
    involving the greatest weapons possessed by the guardian authority,
    the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the Kurdish problem. In
    the meantime now, this same ruling party is engaging in a number
    of imposed-from-above projects like the chopping down of trees
    in Taksim's Gezi Park to make way for a shopping center and other
    similarly bad projects. In addition, new changes in regulations like
    the Court of Auditors Law are very discomforting. But it does appear
    that in general, the weighty role played by Muslims and Kurds under
    the mantle of the AK Party will continue to make its mark on Turkey,
    as the country is carried into the future. What this means is that
    the revolution is set to continue. Let me say here that the guarantee
    for this mission lies in the desire and the energy of the threshold
    of voters who support this revolution and the fact that the AK Party
    is aware it needs to fulfill these things.

    The biggest risk for the AK Party will be when it is unable to
    reflect the energy of its voter base in its own politics. At the
    same time, it is important that the Republican People's Party (CHP)
    and the secular factions not be scared off. One significant example
    of this is the new alcohol regulations passed by Parliament. I am
    not someone who believes that this new law threatens a modern life
    style. Aside from a couple of objections I hold, I do think this is
    a law quite similar to those found in other countries, much like
    laws concerning the sales of cigarettes. At the same time though,
    given the tremendous levels of polarization in Turkey, it probably
    would have been wiser to postpone this law's passage.

    Turkey looks set for exciting times until 2020. And I do believe that
    in another decade or so, we will see a different state along with
    the emergence of an opposition with a different sort of flavor. We
    will just have to keep on living and see this all unfold.

    http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=317068

Working...
X