Tweet
NORMALCY, BUT HOW?
Today'S Zaman, Turkey
July 12 2013
MARKAR ESAYAN
Turkey fell into crisis right at a moment when no one was expecting it.
While it was clear that the run-up to local, general and presidential
elections might see some political turbulence, no one thought the
country would boil over so thoroughly, moving a hair's breadth from
civil war.
The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government must also have
been unprepared; it was seriously shaken by the crisis. What's clear
now is that Turkey can no longer shoulder the politics of
polarization, and that the manipulation of said polarization has
become riskier than ever. Many say -- and it's apparent -- that Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan tends to handle the politics of
polarization with mastery. This is true.
At the same time, claiming that this polarization is what Erdogan
wants is skewing the truth. Since the end of 2002, when the AK Party
came to power, the party has been the focus of constant harassment,
its agenda the target of endless attempts to raise tension. The years
2003-04 saw a series of coup plans that were known to both the
military's General Staff headquarters and the government. The generals
behind these coup plans used military and civilian tools to keep the
national agenda as infused with tension as possible and to try to
portray the AK Party as opposed to secularism.
As for the years 2006-07, they were a complete nightmare. Father
Andrea Santoro was murdered, and Ankara's Council of State -- a symbol
of secularism -- was attacked by a man yelling "freedom for the
headscarf!" who wound up killing one of the high court's judges. It
was to emerge later that attacker Alparslan Aslan had ties to the
Ergenekon organization, but by that time, the entire incident had
already been presented to the world as "Islamists killing secularists
and Christians."
The funeral for Council of State Judge Mustafa Ozbilgin turned into an
anti-government protest, and there were attempts to get people to fill
the streets. At the start of 2007, Hrant Dink was killed, and three
Christians in Malatya were murdered in another incident. After this
came the military e-memorandum intervention, as well as the infamous
"367 decision" from the Constitutional Court on the possible election
of Abdullah Gul as president. Cumhuriyet (Republic) rallies took place
in large cities like İstanbul, İzmir and Ankara. All of these were
operations aimed at increasing polarization throughout Turkey, making
it impossible for the government to lead.
Challenges
The government, in other words, made its way through countless crises
in a very short period of time. There was even an attempt to shut down
the AK Party. Efforts to draft a new constitution failed in 2007. Coup
attempts went on and on. The Balyoz coup planning continued all the
way up to 2009. Just imagine, you've been in power for seven years,
and your country's military General Staff headquarters is still
planning coups against you. In fact, 12 plans were drawn up to
assassinate Erdogan. Plans to assassinate President Abdullah Gul,
Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arınc and Armenian Patriarch Mesrob II
Mutafyan have also been uncovered.
Do you think this was really a healthy foundation for good politics?
Let's also remember the fact that a constitutional bill to which any
reasonable person would have said "yes" had to be presented as a
referendum, and that there were attempts to turn this as well into a
crisis for the regime. Some of us, democratic supporters of the bill
who didn't come from religious factions of society, were targeted
within our own secular circles. Our meetings were interrupted, eggs
were thrown at us and we were accused of colluding with "religious
ignoramuses," when all along this bill contained critical measures
that eliminated some of the military and justice system's guardian
tutelage and opened the way to put the generals behind the Sept. 12,
1980 coup on trial.
All some people could see wasn't what this bill contained but who had
proposed it and who would benefit from it. And as they saw it, the
only ones to benefit from it would be those in government.
It could never have been expected that people coming from such a
narrow political viewpoint could actually engage in politics. And in
fact, they were unable to. They invested all their energy in constant
efforts to increase chaos and polarization, or to foment some new
economic crisis. As for Erdogan, he has spent his 10.5 years in power
trying to either navigate or transcend some enormous new crisis. On
the way, he got used to extraordinary situations, even learning how to
turn them into a political advantage. Using his social and moral
legitimacy, he turned nearly every aspect of these different and new
crises into votes for him and his party. As time passed, he became
more powerful. It is not true that polarization was ever Erdogan's
personal choice; but it is true that he learned to deal with it well,
even forgetting along the way what normal politics are actually like.
In fact, the AK Party never experienced the luxury of doing politics
in a normal country.
Government's responsibilities
The Gezi Park crisis also supports this perspective. A return to
normal levels of tension can be a shock after a long period of high
tension, and Turkey has a serious need for a real opposition party so
that Erdogan can choose normalcy over polarization. We are at the
point where even the most basic reforms are turned into opportunities
to spark leadership crises. It is our right to expect a calm style
aimed at normalization from Erdogan and the government.
But if we expect this from the government, will we continue to see it
as a democratic right when extreme secular factions of society and
other political elements call on people to increase polarization? Yes,
it is true that democracy is not limited to elections, but at the same
time, do the responsibilities of doing politics and the
democratization of the country lie only with the government?
No one supports police violence and the use of excessive force. What's
more, there needs to be urgent justice in the case of the five people
killed in protests.
The government needs to speed up its reforms and show renewed
determination in the writing of the new constitution. All this is
true. But at the same time, will we continue to see incidents like the
attempts to take over Erdogan's offices in Dolmabahce Palace, or his
residence in Ankara, or attacks on covered women -- or, before all
that, the bombing of the Prime Minister's Office and the Ministry of
Justice with rocket-propelled grenades -- as exercises of democratic
rights?
All segments of society must support democratization, normalization
and reforms. Also, more pious members of society must be allowed to be
viewed and accepted as equal and respected members of the community.
In a country that has come to the edge of civil war over a city park,
a covered woman still cannot legally work in a state office, but no
one is made uncomfortable by this fact.
It is true that Erdogan and his government should have transitioned to
a new style of politics following the Sept. 12, 2010 referendum, and
brought down national tensions in the process. But the fact that this
didn't happen is not an excuse for invoking a civil war situation in
the country or aiming to bring down a government.
We all need a new era of unification, where tolerance and
understanding are supported by a new way of speaking. Interpreting the
problem as being rooted in the government isn't enough. Because if
that's the way it really was, we would have a strong alternative party
before us today. But everyone knows that the alternative, opposition
parties we have are lacking when it comes to leading this country and
carrying out new reforms. There is no alternative to the AK Party, and
it's ridiculous to blame the ruling party for this fact.
Like a body having a heart attack, Turkey is having an attack of
insufficient democracy. And in this, it's not just the elected
government but everyone in society who has a role to play and duties
to shoulder.
Today'S Zaman, Turkey
July 12 2013
MARKAR ESAYAN
Turkey fell into crisis right at a moment when no one was expecting it.
While it was clear that the run-up to local, general and presidential
elections might see some political turbulence, no one thought the
country would boil over so thoroughly, moving a hair's breadth from
civil war.
The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government must also have
been unprepared; it was seriously shaken by the crisis. What's clear
now is that Turkey can no longer shoulder the politics of
polarization, and that the manipulation of said polarization has
become riskier than ever. Many say -- and it's apparent -- that Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan tends to handle the politics of
polarization with mastery. This is true.
At the same time, claiming that this polarization is what Erdogan
wants is skewing the truth. Since the end of 2002, when the AK Party
came to power, the party has been the focus of constant harassment,
its agenda the target of endless attempts to raise tension. The years
2003-04 saw a series of coup plans that were known to both the
military's General Staff headquarters and the government. The generals
behind these coup plans used military and civilian tools to keep the
national agenda as infused with tension as possible and to try to
portray the AK Party as opposed to secularism.
As for the years 2006-07, they were a complete nightmare. Father
Andrea Santoro was murdered, and Ankara's Council of State -- a symbol
of secularism -- was attacked by a man yelling "freedom for the
headscarf!" who wound up killing one of the high court's judges. It
was to emerge later that attacker Alparslan Aslan had ties to the
Ergenekon organization, but by that time, the entire incident had
already been presented to the world as "Islamists killing secularists
and Christians."
The funeral for Council of State Judge Mustafa Ozbilgin turned into an
anti-government protest, and there were attempts to get people to fill
the streets. At the start of 2007, Hrant Dink was killed, and three
Christians in Malatya were murdered in another incident. After this
came the military e-memorandum intervention, as well as the infamous
"367 decision" from the Constitutional Court on the possible election
of Abdullah Gul as president. Cumhuriyet (Republic) rallies took place
in large cities like İstanbul, İzmir and Ankara. All of these were
operations aimed at increasing polarization throughout Turkey, making
it impossible for the government to lead.
Challenges
The government, in other words, made its way through countless crises
in a very short period of time. There was even an attempt to shut down
the AK Party. Efforts to draft a new constitution failed in 2007. Coup
attempts went on and on. The Balyoz coup planning continued all the
way up to 2009. Just imagine, you've been in power for seven years,
and your country's military General Staff headquarters is still
planning coups against you. In fact, 12 plans were drawn up to
assassinate Erdogan. Plans to assassinate President Abdullah Gul,
Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arınc and Armenian Patriarch Mesrob II
Mutafyan have also been uncovered.
Do you think this was really a healthy foundation for good politics?
Let's also remember the fact that a constitutional bill to which any
reasonable person would have said "yes" had to be presented as a
referendum, and that there were attempts to turn this as well into a
crisis for the regime. Some of us, democratic supporters of the bill
who didn't come from religious factions of society, were targeted
within our own secular circles. Our meetings were interrupted, eggs
were thrown at us and we were accused of colluding with "religious
ignoramuses," when all along this bill contained critical measures
that eliminated some of the military and justice system's guardian
tutelage and opened the way to put the generals behind the Sept. 12,
1980 coup on trial.
All some people could see wasn't what this bill contained but who had
proposed it and who would benefit from it. And as they saw it, the
only ones to benefit from it would be those in government.
It could never have been expected that people coming from such a
narrow political viewpoint could actually engage in politics. And in
fact, they were unable to. They invested all their energy in constant
efforts to increase chaos and polarization, or to foment some new
economic crisis. As for Erdogan, he has spent his 10.5 years in power
trying to either navigate or transcend some enormous new crisis. On
the way, he got used to extraordinary situations, even learning how to
turn them into a political advantage. Using his social and moral
legitimacy, he turned nearly every aspect of these different and new
crises into votes for him and his party. As time passed, he became
more powerful. It is not true that polarization was ever Erdogan's
personal choice; but it is true that he learned to deal with it well,
even forgetting along the way what normal politics are actually like.
In fact, the AK Party never experienced the luxury of doing politics
in a normal country.
Government's responsibilities
The Gezi Park crisis also supports this perspective. A return to
normal levels of tension can be a shock after a long period of high
tension, and Turkey has a serious need for a real opposition party so
that Erdogan can choose normalcy over polarization. We are at the
point where even the most basic reforms are turned into opportunities
to spark leadership crises. It is our right to expect a calm style
aimed at normalization from Erdogan and the government.
But if we expect this from the government, will we continue to see it
as a democratic right when extreme secular factions of society and
other political elements call on people to increase polarization? Yes,
it is true that democracy is not limited to elections, but at the same
time, do the responsibilities of doing politics and the
democratization of the country lie only with the government?
No one supports police violence and the use of excessive force. What's
more, there needs to be urgent justice in the case of the five people
killed in protests.
The government needs to speed up its reforms and show renewed
determination in the writing of the new constitution. All this is
true. But at the same time, will we continue to see incidents like the
attempts to take over Erdogan's offices in Dolmabahce Palace, or his
residence in Ankara, or attacks on covered women -- or, before all
that, the bombing of the Prime Minister's Office and the Ministry of
Justice with rocket-propelled grenades -- as exercises of democratic
rights?
All segments of society must support democratization, normalization
and reforms. Also, more pious members of society must be allowed to be
viewed and accepted as equal and respected members of the community.
In a country that has come to the edge of civil war over a city park,
a covered woman still cannot legally work in a state office, but no
one is made uncomfortable by this fact.
It is true that Erdogan and his government should have transitioned to
a new style of politics following the Sept. 12, 2010 referendum, and
brought down national tensions in the process. But the fact that this
didn't happen is not an excuse for invoking a civil war situation in
the country or aiming to bring down a government.
We all need a new era of unification, where tolerance and
understanding are supported by a new way of speaking. Interpreting the
problem as being rooted in the government isn't enough. Because if
that's the way it really was, we would have a strong alternative party
before us today. But everyone knows that the alternative, opposition
parties we have are lacking when it comes to leading this country and
carrying out new reforms. There is no alternative to the AK Party, and
it's ridiculous to blame the ruling party for this fact.
Like a body having a heart attack, Turkey is having an attack of
insufficient democracy. And in this, it's not just the elected
government but everyone in society who has a role to play and duties
to shoulder.