Tweet
WHAT IS TURKEY'S IMPORTANCE ALL ABOUT?
Barin Kayaoglu
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Nov 27 2006
News agencies recently reported that former German Chancellor Helmut
Schmidt delivered a lecture at Florence last week, arguing that in
contrast to popular thinking, Turkey was not a bridge between Europe
and the Muslim world and that it was in fact disliked in the Arab
world. The heyday of the address allegedly came when Schmidt said
that "it is suffice to remember how Arabs suffered under Ottoman
rule." Because of the Ottoman past, incorporating Turkey would be
counter-productive to the European Union, Moreover, he continued,
Turkey's EU membership was not in European interests and was indeed
pushed by the United States. [1]
It is important to attend to such questions, especially when they
come from senior statesmen. Let us embark on a mind-quest to figure
out just exactly what Turkey's "importance" is all about. What do we
really mean by Turkey being a "bridge" or a "model country" to the
Muslim world? Is Turkey really a viable answer to the problems of
the world today? If so, what are those lessons?
Modernizing the state and the socio-economy of the land was one of
the greatest hardships that challenged the Ottoman Empire. Renowned
historian İlber Ortayli calls the 19th century the "Empire's
Longest Century." Ottoman reforms, even though always intended to
modernize the armed forces first, extended to other aspects of the
Empire's life: a secular legal system, a new education system, female
emancipation, the advent of a lively press and intelligentsia all came
about during the 19th century. It was during the 19th century that the
power of the sultan was legally curbed through a constitution. This
was extremely significant, one should bear in mind, because the
Ottoman sultan held the title of caliph, the nominal successor of
the Prophet Mohammed. What really happened with the Ottoman example
was the limitations imposed to the authority of an Islamic absolute
monarch who was believed to hold divine right.
For those who study political science or European history, there is
nothing new here. But it was a historic precedent for a Muslim empire
to witness the rise of a parliamentary and constitutional system.
Ottoman constitutionalism, for sure, was not trouble-free. Sultan
Abdulhamid II suspended the constitution and kept the parliament shut
for over thirty years from 1877 until 1908.
Another very important element of the Ottoman experience was what
has been dubbed Pax Ottomana (Ottoman peace). As can be inferred
from the name, this system involved the peaceful co-existence of
different nations under Ottoman imperial rule. The central government
did not interfere with the intra-ethnic workings of its constituent
communities and sustained a multi-cultural social order until the
very end. Pax Ottomana ultimately collapsed, with tragic consequences:
present-day Middle East and Balkans, as well as the mutual headaches
between Turks and Armenians are but a few of these.
The peace and tranquility that the Ottomans delivered to the Balkans
and the Middle East remain to be resuscitated.
The Ottomans had the greatest misfortune of being on the losing side
at the end of World War I. Faced with an ominous partition, Turkey
managed to negotiate a more fair peace treaty with the Allies thanks
to its successful conclusion of its War of Independence in 1922 under
the leadership of its founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Volumes have been written on Ataturk's legacy. There are but two very
important points to bear in mind about that legacy: democracy and
secularism. One of the virtues of Ataturk - and there were many of
them - was that he was a great visionary. He restructured the Turkish
political system in such a way that despite all of the challenges,
it has been able to remain both democratic and secular and adapt
to changing global dynamics. Secularism, the separation of church -
well, in Turkey's case mosque - and state, has been the core element
through which Turkish society has been able to safely practice its
myriad religious aspirations. For their part, Turkish statesmen have
had an easier time in running the state as secularism freed their
hands from addressing religious concerns and allowed them to operate
pragmatically in the realm of politics. In other words, secularism
has empowered Turkey.
Democracy has also been a blessing for Turkey. Since the establishment
of the Republic in 1923, Turkey has always claimed to be a democracy
of some sort. This claim was realized in the late 1940s with the
advent of multi-party politics and an extension of the boundaries of
freedom of expression. Those years were marked by incessant political
turmoil and economic instability but today Turkish people elect
their representatives and despite all the problems that trouble the
country, such as poverty and the inadequacy of public services, they
remain hopeful. In spite all of its deficiencies, Turkey sustains
a vibrant civil society and press which exert a remarkable degree
of influence over the state. Democracy, just like secularism, has
empowered Turkish people.
One should aviod the trapdoor of self-righteousness, however. The setup
of the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet İşleri
Başkanligi - which does not sponsor non-Sunni Muslim places
of worship) and the remaining obstacles to free speech (such as the
hideous article 301 of the penal code) are still formidable setbacks
for Turkey. The solution to these problems are not intractable,
nevertheless. The inclusion of other major religious parties in
the country -the leaders of Alawite foundations, Greek and Armenian
Orthodox patriarchs, and the Chief Rabbi - would not only enrich the
intellectual aura of divinity schools and the Directorate itself,
but also grant tremendous legitimacy to the state's supervisory role
over religion. As for freedom of expression, it has been stated time
and again in this column to view free speech not as a danger, but as
one of Turkey's most important allies. Anybody who wishes to disagree
with anything - with the caveat that they do not espouse violence -
should have their say. That is the best and luckily the only option
before Turkey.[2]
Notwithstanding these nuisances, any objective commentator must
appreciate the democratic and secular character of Turkey. Turkey
is the only country that combines the elements of being Muslim,
democratic, and secular. This is a unique thing in the world today.
No other Muslim country has managed to combine these three
characteristics yet.
The question is, then, as to what can be done in a turbulent world.
Many people would agree that there is a significant democratic
deficit in Muslim countries today. We cannot afford to ignore this
problem that has global ramifications. Lack of proper governance in
distant parts of the world affects each and every member of the global
community. The answer to that problem is to empower Muslims around the
world. The only way to do that is to follow Turkey's example. Islam is
not inherently in conflict with modernization. The problem is not with
Islam but with how Muslims interpret it. We ought to realize that not
only are secularism and democracy not in contradiction with Islam,
but they in fact augment it. Turkey is the case in point. For the
past 80 years, and even before that, religious tension has not been
a major issue in Turkey. Turkish people enjoy both the pleasantries
of mundane life while practicing their religions freely.
Perhaps the statement by Prime Minister Mr. Tayyip Erdogan's former
senior advisor sums all of what has been said so far. About a year
ago, Mr. Omer Celik stated that secularism was the greatest power
("nuclear" power, as he put it) which Turkey had in comparison with the
Middle East. The Republic's secular and democratic characteristics,
according to Celik, were proof that Turkey's political ideals were
compatible with those of Europe.[3]
Turkey is at a critical juncture in its accession negotiations
with the EU. Those who follow this column already know that I have
lost my enthusiasm for Turkey's EU membership. But it would be too
foolish to deny the fact that there is still a historic opportunity
before the EU and the West. By faithfully negotiating with a Muslim
country that has been a part of Europe for centuries (bear in mind
that the Ottoman Empire was a European power even more than a Middle
Eastern one), the EU and the West have it within their grasp to turn
to other Muslim countries around the world and convincingly make the
case that there are genuine benefits by joining the global community
through democratization and secularization. This appeal will not be
easy and that Turkey will probably not join the EU. Nevertheless,
by accepting Turkey as a legitimate partner, European countries can
counter most of the criticisms that they are Islamophobic. Following
Turkey's example, Muslim countries will finally ease their suspicions
in their dealings with the West.
Turkey is the best asset that Europe can hope to incorporate in
the brave new millenium. The European Union with Turkey would serve
European interests more than Turkish interests in the long run. The
decision to walk that bridge is for Europeans like Helmut Schmidt
to decide.
+++
24 November 2006
Barin Kayaoglu is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of
Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia and a regular contributor to
the Journal of Turkish Weekly.
E-mail: [email protected]
[1] "Schmidt: Turkiye Kopru degil" (Schmidt: Turkey is not
a bridge), ntvmsnbc.com, November 18, 2006; available from
http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/391283.asp.
[2] Barin Kayaoglu, "Turkey's Allies are Common Sense and Freedom of
Expression," Journal of Turkish Weekly, October 25, 2006; available
from http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2339.
[3] "Laiklik Turkiye'nin elinde nukleer guc gibi" (Secularism is
like nuclear power for Turkey), Sabah, October 13, 2005; available
from http://www.sabah.com.tr/2005/10/13/siy102.html.
Barin Kayaoglu
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Nov 27 2006
News agencies recently reported that former German Chancellor Helmut
Schmidt delivered a lecture at Florence last week, arguing that in
contrast to popular thinking, Turkey was not a bridge between Europe
and the Muslim world and that it was in fact disliked in the Arab
world. The heyday of the address allegedly came when Schmidt said
that "it is suffice to remember how Arabs suffered under Ottoman
rule." Because of the Ottoman past, incorporating Turkey would be
counter-productive to the European Union, Moreover, he continued,
Turkey's EU membership was not in European interests and was indeed
pushed by the United States. [1]
It is important to attend to such questions, especially when they
come from senior statesmen. Let us embark on a mind-quest to figure
out just exactly what Turkey's "importance" is all about. What do we
really mean by Turkey being a "bridge" or a "model country" to the
Muslim world? Is Turkey really a viable answer to the problems of
the world today? If so, what are those lessons?
Modernizing the state and the socio-economy of the land was one of
the greatest hardships that challenged the Ottoman Empire. Renowned
historian İlber Ortayli calls the 19th century the "Empire's
Longest Century." Ottoman reforms, even though always intended to
modernize the armed forces first, extended to other aspects of the
Empire's life: a secular legal system, a new education system, female
emancipation, the advent of a lively press and intelligentsia all came
about during the 19th century. It was during the 19th century that the
power of the sultan was legally curbed through a constitution. This
was extremely significant, one should bear in mind, because the
Ottoman sultan held the title of caliph, the nominal successor of
the Prophet Mohammed. What really happened with the Ottoman example
was the limitations imposed to the authority of an Islamic absolute
monarch who was believed to hold divine right.
For those who study political science or European history, there is
nothing new here. But it was a historic precedent for a Muslim empire
to witness the rise of a parliamentary and constitutional system.
Ottoman constitutionalism, for sure, was not trouble-free. Sultan
Abdulhamid II suspended the constitution and kept the parliament shut
for over thirty years from 1877 until 1908.
Another very important element of the Ottoman experience was what
has been dubbed Pax Ottomana (Ottoman peace). As can be inferred
from the name, this system involved the peaceful co-existence of
different nations under Ottoman imperial rule. The central government
did not interfere with the intra-ethnic workings of its constituent
communities and sustained a multi-cultural social order until the
very end. Pax Ottomana ultimately collapsed, with tragic consequences:
present-day Middle East and Balkans, as well as the mutual headaches
between Turks and Armenians are but a few of these.
The peace and tranquility that the Ottomans delivered to the Balkans
and the Middle East remain to be resuscitated.
The Ottomans had the greatest misfortune of being on the losing side
at the end of World War I. Faced with an ominous partition, Turkey
managed to negotiate a more fair peace treaty with the Allies thanks
to its successful conclusion of its War of Independence in 1922 under
the leadership of its founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Volumes have been written on Ataturk's legacy. There are but two very
important points to bear in mind about that legacy: democracy and
secularism. One of the virtues of Ataturk - and there were many of
them - was that he was a great visionary. He restructured the Turkish
political system in such a way that despite all of the challenges,
it has been able to remain both democratic and secular and adapt
to changing global dynamics. Secularism, the separation of church -
well, in Turkey's case mosque - and state, has been the core element
through which Turkish society has been able to safely practice its
myriad religious aspirations. For their part, Turkish statesmen have
had an easier time in running the state as secularism freed their
hands from addressing religious concerns and allowed them to operate
pragmatically in the realm of politics. In other words, secularism
has empowered Turkey.
Democracy has also been a blessing for Turkey. Since the establishment
of the Republic in 1923, Turkey has always claimed to be a democracy
of some sort. This claim was realized in the late 1940s with the
advent of multi-party politics and an extension of the boundaries of
freedom of expression. Those years were marked by incessant political
turmoil and economic instability but today Turkish people elect
their representatives and despite all the problems that trouble the
country, such as poverty and the inadequacy of public services, they
remain hopeful. In spite all of its deficiencies, Turkey sustains
a vibrant civil society and press which exert a remarkable degree
of influence over the state. Democracy, just like secularism, has
empowered Turkish people.
One should aviod the trapdoor of self-righteousness, however. The setup
of the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet İşleri
Başkanligi - which does not sponsor non-Sunni Muslim places
of worship) and the remaining obstacles to free speech (such as the
hideous article 301 of the penal code) are still formidable setbacks
for Turkey. The solution to these problems are not intractable,
nevertheless. The inclusion of other major religious parties in
the country -the leaders of Alawite foundations, Greek and Armenian
Orthodox patriarchs, and the Chief Rabbi - would not only enrich the
intellectual aura of divinity schools and the Directorate itself,
but also grant tremendous legitimacy to the state's supervisory role
over religion. As for freedom of expression, it has been stated time
and again in this column to view free speech not as a danger, but as
one of Turkey's most important allies. Anybody who wishes to disagree
with anything - with the caveat that they do not espouse violence -
should have their say. That is the best and luckily the only option
before Turkey.[2]
Notwithstanding these nuisances, any objective commentator must
appreciate the democratic and secular character of Turkey. Turkey
is the only country that combines the elements of being Muslim,
democratic, and secular. This is a unique thing in the world today.
No other Muslim country has managed to combine these three
characteristics yet.
The question is, then, as to what can be done in a turbulent world.
Many people would agree that there is a significant democratic
deficit in Muslim countries today. We cannot afford to ignore this
problem that has global ramifications. Lack of proper governance in
distant parts of the world affects each and every member of the global
community. The answer to that problem is to empower Muslims around the
world. The only way to do that is to follow Turkey's example. Islam is
not inherently in conflict with modernization. The problem is not with
Islam but with how Muslims interpret it. We ought to realize that not
only are secularism and democracy not in contradiction with Islam,
but they in fact augment it. Turkey is the case in point. For the
past 80 years, and even before that, religious tension has not been
a major issue in Turkey. Turkish people enjoy both the pleasantries
of mundane life while practicing their religions freely.
Perhaps the statement by Prime Minister Mr. Tayyip Erdogan's former
senior advisor sums all of what has been said so far. About a year
ago, Mr. Omer Celik stated that secularism was the greatest power
("nuclear" power, as he put it) which Turkey had in comparison with the
Middle East. The Republic's secular and democratic characteristics,
according to Celik, were proof that Turkey's political ideals were
compatible with those of Europe.[3]
Turkey is at a critical juncture in its accession negotiations
with the EU. Those who follow this column already know that I have
lost my enthusiasm for Turkey's EU membership. But it would be too
foolish to deny the fact that there is still a historic opportunity
before the EU and the West. By faithfully negotiating with a Muslim
country that has been a part of Europe for centuries (bear in mind
that the Ottoman Empire was a European power even more than a Middle
Eastern one), the EU and the West have it within their grasp to turn
to other Muslim countries around the world and convincingly make the
case that there are genuine benefits by joining the global community
through democratization and secularization. This appeal will not be
easy and that Turkey will probably not join the EU. Nevertheless,
by accepting Turkey as a legitimate partner, European countries can
counter most of the criticisms that they are Islamophobic. Following
Turkey's example, Muslim countries will finally ease their suspicions
in their dealings with the West.
Turkey is the best asset that Europe can hope to incorporate in
the brave new millenium. The European Union with Turkey would serve
European interests more than Turkish interests in the long run. The
decision to walk that bridge is for Europeans like Helmut Schmidt
to decide.
+++
24 November 2006
Barin Kayaoglu is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of
Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia and a regular contributor to
the Journal of Turkish Weekly.
E-mail: [email protected]
[1] "Schmidt: Turkiye Kopru degil" (Schmidt: Turkey is not
a bridge), ntvmsnbc.com, November 18, 2006; available from
http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/391283.asp.
[2] Barin Kayaoglu, "Turkey's Allies are Common Sense and Freedom of
Expression," Journal of Turkish Weekly, October 25, 2006; available
from http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2339.
[3] "Laiklik Turkiye'nin elinde nukleer guc gibi" (Secularism is
like nuclear power for Turkey), Sabah, October 13, 2005; available
from http://www.sabah.com.tr/2005/10/13/siy102.html.