Tweet
RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AND CHANGE
By Etyen Mahcupyan
Today's Zaman
09 October 2009, Friday
Turkey's self-made protective cocoon is tearing apart, and this is
surprisingly being done by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party)
government and people who are generally sensitive to religious issues.
Turkey's self-made protective cocoon is tearing apart, and this is
surprisingly being done by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party)
government and people who are generally sensitive to religious issues.
The increase in Turkey's desire to integrate with the world over
the last five years was dependant not just on the empowerment of
Anatolian capital and its bourgeoisie but also on the transformation
of the desired mentality, which has infused into the bureaucracy. Just
about every ministry is steering away from traditional patriarchal
practices. A different bureaucratic approach that is open to
participation and increasingly sees society as an equal is being
developed.
It is clear that all these developments cannot be explained solely by
the AK Party administration's foresight and common sense. This is the
one point that those who try to understand Turkey only by looking
at the AK Party fail to understand, because as far as mentality
goes, the AK Party does not transcend the religious society known as
"conservative." Today the government represents the average member of
that segment of society. Of course, there is a small group, comprising
possibly three to five percent of the conservatives in this country
that is ready to produce fanaticism out of religion. But 10 percent
of the same society is more democratic than the AK Party in terms of
freedoms and human rights. The change that is taking place is headed
more in the direction of the second group. Most likely, 20 years ago
these figures were the complete opposite or perhaps more dismal. If a
Kurdish initiative is being discussed today, if Turkey is rebuilding
its relations with Armenia and if Alevi workshops are being conducted,
the reason for this is that the internal dynamics of an appropriate
world conjuncture and the internal dynamics of Turkey's religious
people are on the same level.
The resulting major sociological and ideological wave has enabled
society and consequently the AK Party government to develop ties with
the multicultural heritage inherited from the Ottoman era. We are
looking at ourselves through the prism of a broader reference that
exceeds the current strict and narrow nationalist perspective. At
least the AK Party administration appears to have understood that a
"powerful" Turkey can be developed if its multicultural heritage
is protected.
It is for this reason that we have witnessed two speeches never heard
before in the history of the republic. The speech Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivered during his party congress and the
speech President Abdullah Gul delivered two days prior to the party
congress could be signaling the passing of a point from which there
is no return. Erdogan's preferred populist tone became a means to
voice things previously unspoken in this country. When the prime
minister said, "No one in this country has the right to discriminate
against another," he was also putting a distance between himself and
the 90-year-old state policy.
His appeal to the opposition was a declaration of his determination
to be able to engage in discussion to solve problems and to launch
a "new beginning" together. However, the most interesting part of
Erdogan's speech was the emphasis placed on points underlining that
pressure from the base was to become more democratic. He illustrated
that the reforms were being pursued not because of well-intentioned
government plans but because of the nation and era's "invitation."
As for Gul's speech on the occasion of the opening of the new
legislative year, it was built over an intellectual ground and spanned
a broad spectrum, addressing different points, such as the fact t
social demands and that the concept of security must be based on
individual and social security.
In this respect, we listened to a president that favored the protection
and transmission of social and cultural differences. While emphasizing
that differences are perceived as a "threat" only if we look at them
with an "alienated" eye, Gul was underlining that Turkish nationalism
was essentially becoming foreign to society.
Those that have observed the AK Party closely up until now will know
that these two speeches were not independent of each other. While the
prime minister laid the sentimental and ideological groundwork for
potential political steps and reforms, the president situated them in
a contemporary understanding of justice and freedom. Not only did he
openly express his support, he also invited Parliament to take the
planned steps and implement the reforms.
These statements may not be considered new for Turkey. However,
it is the first time that there has been so much consistency
between politicians. More importantly, for the first time, we are
observing a political staff commit to a democratic transformation
program and decide to make the program a part of their political
career. An endeavor that is generally expected from a "left" or
"liberal" government is being pursued by a government that has a
high Islamic sensitivity and is subject to attempts to label it
"pro-Shariah." Perhaps it is time to forego stereotypes and finally
start trying to understand what is happening. Turkey is on the brink of
becoming free from a nationalist republic understanding that had been
legitimized by an authoritarian secularism up until now and this change
is most naturally being pursued by the "natives" of this country.
We don't how much the AK Party will be able to insist on its new
political line or how much progress it will make if the secular
segment of society tries to inhibit it. The peculiar mentality of
politics may postpone meeting the country's needs or sacrifice it
to national ja that has produced the current desire for change is
irreversible. If the AK Party cannot carry this responsibility, a
different civil movement that can carry it will emerge shortly, and
most likely this movement will also come from a "religious" identity.
By Etyen Mahcupyan
Today's Zaman
09 October 2009, Friday
Turkey's self-made protective cocoon is tearing apart, and this is
surprisingly being done by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party)
government and people who are generally sensitive to religious issues.
Turkey's self-made protective cocoon is tearing apart, and this is
surprisingly being done by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party)
government and people who are generally sensitive to religious issues.
The increase in Turkey's desire to integrate with the world over
the last five years was dependant not just on the empowerment of
Anatolian capital and its bourgeoisie but also on the transformation
of the desired mentality, which has infused into the bureaucracy. Just
about every ministry is steering away from traditional patriarchal
practices. A different bureaucratic approach that is open to
participation and increasingly sees society as an equal is being
developed.
It is clear that all these developments cannot be explained solely by
the AK Party administration's foresight and common sense. This is the
one point that those who try to understand Turkey only by looking
at the AK Party fail to understand, because as far as mentality
goes, the AK Party does not transcend the religious society known as
"conservative." Today the government represents the average member of
that segment of society. Of course, there is a small group, comprising
possibly three to five percent of the conservatives in this country
that is ready to produce fanaticism out of religion. But 10 percent
of the same society is more democratic than the AK Party in terms of
freedoms and human rights. The change that is taking place is headed
more in the direction of the second group. Most likely, 20 years ago
these figures were the complete opposite or perhaps more dismal. If a
Kurdish initiative is being discussed today, if Turkey is rebuilding
its relations with Armenia and if Alevi workshops are being conducted,
the reason for this is that the internal dynamics of an appropriate
world conjuncture and the internal dynamics of Turkey's religious
people are on the same level.
The resulting major sociological and ideological wave has enabled
society and consequently the AK Party government to develop ties with
the multicultural heritage inherited from the Ottoman era. We are
looking at ourselves through the prism of a broader reference that
exceeds the current strict and narrow nationalist perspective. At
least the AK Party administration appears to have understood that a
"powerful" Turkey can be developed if its multicultural heritage
is protected.
It is for this reason that we have witnessed two speeches never heard
before in the history of the republic. The speech Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivered during his party congress and the
speech President Abdullah Gul delivered two days prior to the party
congress could be signaling the passing of a point from which there
is no return. Erdogan's preferred populist tone became a means to
voice things previously unspoken in this country. When the prime
minister said, "No one in this country has the right to discriminate
against another," he was also putting a distance between himself and
the 90-year-old state policy.
His appeal to the opposition was a declaration of his determination
to be able to engage in discussion to solve problems and to launch
a "new beginning" together. However, the most interesting part of
Erdogan's speech was the emphasis placed on points underlining that
pressure from the base was to become more democratic. He illustrated
that the reforms were being pursued not because of well-intentioned
government plans but because of the nation and era's "invitation."
As for Gul's speech on the occasion of the opening of the new
legislative year, it was built over an intellectual ground and spanned
a broad spectrum, addressing different points, such as the fact t
social demands and that the concept of security must be based on
individual and social security.
In this respect, we listened to a president that favored the protection
and transmission of social and cultural differences. While emphasizing
that differences are perceived as a "threat" only if we look at them
with an "alienated" eye, Gul was underlining that Turkish nationalism
was essentially becoming foreign to society.
Those that have observed the AK Party closely up until now will know
that these two speeches were not independent of each other. While the
prime minister laid the sentimental and ideological groundwork for
potential political steps and reforms, the president situated them in
a contemporary understanding of justice and freedom. Not only did he
openly express his support, he also invited Parliament to take the
planned steps and implement the reforms.
These statements may not be considered new for Turkey. However,
it is the first time that there has been so much consistency
between politicians. More importantly, for the first time, we are
observing a political staff commit to a democratic transformation
program and decide to make the program a part of their political
career. An endeavor that is generally expected from a "left" or
"liberal" government is being pursued by a government that has a
high Islamic sensitivity and is subject to attempts to label it
"pro-Shariah." Perhaps it is time to forego stereotypes and finally
start trying to understand what is happening. Turkey is on the brink of
becoming free from a nationalist republic understanding that had been
legitimized by an authoritarian secularism up until now and this change
is most naturally being pursued by the "natives" of this country.
We don't how much the AK Party will be able to insist on its new
political line or how much progress it will make if the secular
segment of society tries to inhibit it. The peculiar mentality of
politics may postpone meeting the country's needs or sacrifice it
to national ja that has produced the current desire for change is
irreversible. If the AK Party cannot carry this responsibility, a
different civil movement that can carry it will emerge shortly, and
most likely this movement will also come from a "religious" identity.