Tweet
Radikal, Turkey
June 21 2013
How Will Erdogan be Seen by History?
by Cengiz Candar
I see how Tayyip Erdogan has fallen today from a shining 10-year
performance as prime minister as "Shakespearean tragedy."
One very influential and important foreign journalist said, "My last
question; so Erdogan is not going to go down in history as the great
reformer then?"
"He might," I answered. "But only if he makes a dramatic turnaround
from where he is now. Given his nature as I know it I do not think
this is particularly likely. His Gezi performance has been so bad that
like President of the Republic Gul said, it is as if he managed to
demolish in 10 days all the gains they had made by scraping with their
bare hands over the past 10 years. But if he continues in this vein he
will go down in history with an entirely different description. Right
now he is on a knife's edge. He could fall to one side or the other."
The question that was put to me the other day is clearly one that is
being asked a lot in the West these days. The editorial in the
Financial Times Enhanced Coverage Linkingthe Financial Times -Search
using:Company ProfileNews, Most Recent 60 DaysCompany Dossieron 12
June posed that question and left it open to debate. The title read:
"Erdogan's Stubbornness Jeopardizes his Legacy." The following spot
heading was included: "The prime minister's behaviour is ruining
Turkey's regional image."
This section from the editorial grabs the attention: "Erdogan's
ambition to slide from the prime ministry, which he occupied for 10
years, to an empowered presidency and then occupy that office for 10
more years until the 100th anniversary of the Republic is jeopardizing
the important gains he has made thus far. Turkey's image as a
reformist regional power and its troubled relationship with the EU are
in even greater peril. The short-term capital, which is vulnerable to
all kinds of dangers, and the hard-won economic stability could all go
up is smoke if the prime minister continues to clash with anonymous
speculators and capital groups.
"Erdogan undertook a brave gamble in order to end the Kurdistan
Workers Party (PKK) [Kurdistan People's Congress, KGK] 30-year
rebellion that has cost 40,000 lives. This peace initiative has forced
Turks to reevaluate the Kemalist republic's intolerance of minorities
in general and the Kurds in particular. But it will be difficult to
see how the prime minister can broaden freedoms for the Kurds while
curbing them for the rest of the population.
"The numbers favour Erdogan on the streets and in any election on the
horizon. There is no doubt that he will steam-roller ahead. But in
that case he will be at the head of a country where both his own image
as well as the social fabric has been damaged. He is more Putin than
Ataturk. This Turkey of Erdogan's will no longer be the country
admired for an outstanding decade under his tenure as prime minister."
Exactly one week after this editorial in the FT another British paper
the Guardian on 19 Jun published an extremely remarkable
"psycho-analytical" article called, "Erdogan's Fall From Grace, a
Complete Shakespearean Tragedy." It begins: "Set aside some time to
ponder for a moment a man's personal tragedy, one that very few people
have been able to acknowledge while all the protests are taking place
in Turkey: Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Up until three weeks ago Erdogan was
certain to go down in Turkey's history alongside Ataturk and Suleyman
the Magnificent as one of its greatest reformers despite all the
rowdiness and tumult of the past three years."
It continues: "What we have here is a man with the power to tackle
Turkey's centuries-old disputes with the Kurds, the Armenians and the
Greeks, and govern his country into a peaceful, prosperous and
democratic future as a model not only for Muslim countries but for all
other rising economic powers trying to shake off their imperfect
pasts." It does not forget Erdogan's success in defeating the
"military tutelage" either. Hinting at the events of the past three
weeks it clearly states, "If this had happened in pre-Erdogan Turkey
there would have been a military coup by now."
The "Shakespearean tragedy" part of this affair is seen in these sentences:
"The power that concentrated in him when defeating the generals -power
that he obtained both correctly and by committing fouls -plus that war
paranoia has not been good for him. Within just a few days Erdogan has
come to embody the fully corrupt despotism and violence of the old
Kemalist Turkey, which he was elected to clean up.
"The irony of it is that this is all Erdogan's doing. His rule was so
powerful that only Erdogan could ruin Erdogan. He did this himself by
turning an insignificant protest in a tiny park into a state of
national emergency."
My evaluation of Tayyip Erdogan is broadly the same. I have known him
for more than 20 years. Unlike what some people might think I have
never been close to him, let alone among those closest to him. Not
really. However, I have been wracking my brains without any prejudice
towards Tayyip Erdogan and by noticing that he has some very important
leadership qualities. I have kept a constant eye on him. I have tried
to understand him. I have tried to make him understood in all four
corners of the globe with the aim of demolishing all the negative
prejudice against him. Nobody can deny the positive contributions he
has made to Turkey in the past 10 years.
And indeed nobody is denying them. For example, in an article by
Daniel Dombey in yesterday's Financial Times Tayyip Erdogan's positive
contributions to Turkey over the past 10 years were listed figure by
figure. It is precisely because of this that I regard Tayyip Erdogan's
fall from a brilliant decade as prime minister to where he is today,
his "dangerous ambitions" and the situation he is in today because of
the Gezi Park protests as a "Shakespearean tragedy."
Meaning, these are "dangerous times" now. And just like the Guardian
said, only Tayyip Erdogan could have done this to Tayyip Erdogan. This
is because the power that Tayyip Erdogan had amassed was comparable
only to that held by Kemal Ataturk or by Ismet Inonu during the
single-party-rule period in our history. Adnan Menderes did not have
this kind of power. Opposite Menderes was an opposition leader like
Ismet Inonu. And for the coup there was clearly an army lying in
ambush on 27 May 1960.
There is no-one to oppose Erdogan. There is no person who can present
an alternative to him, no political party and no army threatening a
coup. He has an incredible power monopoly in his hands. It is for this
reason that I have never given credence to his "lieutenants" and his
"advisers."
Powerful politicians like Tayyip Erdogan surround themselves with "yes
men" who are usually nothing and who will never amount to anything.
There is no-one within Erdogan's "inner circle" that can raise
objections, no "adviser" that can "tell him what is right" when
necessary. His "advisers" are people who would be nothing were it not
for Tayyip Erdogan. These people are not in the least bit important.
They are a dry crowd of "yes sir" people. What matters is Tayyip
Erdogan, who has amassed an amazing power monopoly.
This Tayyip Erdogan appears "to be on the decline" while not losing
any of his ruling authority, and in fact while being able to rally
tens of thousands of people and keep on roaring. There is now debate
as to how he will go down in history, and what words will be used to
describe him. This is the real tragedy.
The article I quoted above reads: "It is clear that Erdogan has
adopted the methods used by the generals he defeated. His response to
the Gezi crisis was straight out of the old Kemalist coup handbook:
brutality, black propaganda, conspiracy theories and a whole lot of
bad intent." This accurately reflects Erdogan's current "tragic"
situation, does it not?
Besides, it does say, "We are witnessing a Shakespearean tragedy in
its purist form" adding, "But this one threatens to turn into a
national disaster."
The person who penned those lines judges that "the broad coalition
that brought the AKP [Justice and Development Party] to power might
well have ended forever." They spoke with a textile merchant from
Kayserii at the weekend. He sent his employees to the Tayyip Erdogan
rallies by bus but his daughter, who wears Islamic headdress, is not
talking to him because he supports the prime minister. Not a day goes
by when they are not arguing in the home. The Guardian writer asks
this Kayseri textile merchant whether or not he supported changes to
the constitution that would make Erdogan a French or Russian-style
president." This pro-Erdogan textile merchant from Kayseri changed his
tone and answered:
"We cannot make this man the president. Not now. Tayyip would ruin us all."
That is the prediction of one of his key supporters concerning his
work for the decade to come.
Meaning?
Meaning, Tayyip Erdogan's situation is a "tragedy." But now that he is
in this situation, to afford him another 10 years of absolute rule by,
to quote him, increasing the powers of the police could turn into "a
tragedy for Turkey."
[Translated from Turkish]
June 21 2013
How Will Erdogan be Seen by History?
by Cengiz Candar
I see how Tayyip Erdogan has fallen today from a shining 10-year
performance as prime minister as "Shakespearean tragedy."
One very influential and important foreign journalist said, "My last
question; so Erdogan is not going to go down in history as the great
reformer then?"
"He might," I answered. "But only if he makes a dramatic turnaround
from where he is now. Given his nature as I know it I do not think
this is particularly likely. His Gezi performance has been so bad that
like President of the Republic Gul said, it is as if he managed to
demolish in 10 days all the gains they had made by scraping with their
bare hands over the past 10 years. But if he continues in this vein he
will go down in history with an entirely different description. Right
now he is on a knife's edge. He could fall to one side or the other."
The question that was put to me the other day is clearly one that is
being asked a lot in the West these days. The editorial in the
Financial Times Enhanced Coverage Linkingthe Financial Times -Search
using:Company ProfileNews, Most Recent 60 DaysCompany Dossieron 12
June posed that question and left it open to debate. The title read:
"Erdogan's Stubbornness Jeopardizes his Legacy." The following spot
heading was included: "The prime minister's behaviour is ruining
Turkey's regional image."
This section from the editorial grabs the attention: "Erdogan's
ambition to slide from the prime ministry, which he occupied for 10
years, to an empowered presidency and then occupy that office for 10
more years until the 100th anniversary of the Republic is jeopardizing
the important gains he has made thus far. Turkey's image as a
reformist regional power and its troubled relationship with the EU are
in even greater peril. The short-term capital, which is vulnerable to
all kinds of dangers, and the hard-won economic stability could all go
up is smoke if the prime minister continues to clash with anonymous
speculators and capital groups.
"Erdogan undertook a brave gamble in order to end the Kurdistan
Workers Party (PKK) [Kurdistan People's Congress, KGK] 30-year
rebellion that has cost 40,000 lives. This peace initiative has forced
Turks to reevaluate the Kemalist republic's intolerance of minorities
in general and the Kurds in particular. But it will be difficult to
see how the prime minister can broaden freedoms for the Kurds while
curbing them for the rest of the population.
"The numbers favour Erdogan on the streets and in any election on the
horizon. There is no doubt that he will steam-roller ahead. But in
that case he will be at the head of a country where both his own image
as well as the social fabric has been damaged. He is more Putin than
Ataturk. This Turkey of Erdogan's will no longer be the country
admired for an outstanding decade under his tenure as prime minister."
Exactly one week after this editorial in the FT another British paper
the Guardian on 19 Jun published an extremely remarkable
"psycho-analytical" article called, "Erdogan's Fall From Grace, a
Complete Shakespearean Tragedy." It begins: "Set aside some time to
ponder for a moment a man's personal tragedy, one that very few people
have been able to acknowledge while all the protests are taking place
in Turkey: Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Up until three weeks ago Erdogan was
certain to go down in Turkey's history alongside Ataturk and Suleyman
the Magnificent as one of its greatest reformers despite all the
rowdiness and tumult of the past three years."
It continues: "What we have here is a man with the power to tackle
Turkey's centuries-old disputes with the Kurds, the Armenians and the
Greeks, and govern his country into a peaceful, prosperous and
democratic future as a model not only for Muslim countries but for all
other rising economic powers trying to shake off their imperfect
pasts." It does not forget Erdogan's success in defeating the
"military tutelage" either. Hinting at the events of the past three
weeks it clearly states, "If this had happened in pre-Erdogan Turkey
there would have been a military coup by now."
The "Shakespearean tragedy" part of this affair is seen in these sentences:
"The power that concentrated in him when defeating the generals -power
that he obtained both correctly and by committing fouls -plus that war
paranoia has not been good for him. Within just a few days Erdogan has
come to embody the fully corrupt despotism and violence of the old
Kemalist Turkey, which he was elected to clean up.
"The irony of it is that this is all Erdogan's doing. His rule was so
powerful that only Erdogan could ruin Erdogan. He did this himself by
turning an insignificant protest in a tiny park into a state of
national emergency."
My evaluation of Tayyip Erdogan is broadly the same. I have known him
for more than 20 years. Unlike what some people might think I have
never been close to him, let alone among those closest to him. Not
really. However, I have been wracking my brains without any prejudice
towards Tayyip Erdogan and by noticing that he has some very important
leadership qualities. I have kept a constant eye on him. I have tried
to understand him. I have tried to make him understood in all four
corners of the globe with the aim of demolishing all the negative
prejudice against him. Nobody can deny the positive contributions he
has made to Turkey in the past 10 years.
And indeed nobody is denying them. For example, in an article by
Daniel Dombey in yesterday's Financial Times Tayyip Erdogan's positive
contributions to Turkey over the past 10 years were listed figure by
figure. It is precisely because of this that I regard Tayyip Erdogan's
fall from a brilliant decade as prime minister to where he is today,
his "dangerous ambitions" and the situation he is in today because of
the Gezi Park protests as a "Shakespearean tragedy."
Meaning, these are "dangerous times" now. And just like the Guardian
said, only Tayyip Erdogan could have done this to Tayyip Erdogan. This
is because the power that Tayyip Erdogan had amassed was comparable
only to that held by Kemal Ataturk or by Ismet Inonu during the
single-party-rule period in our history. Adnan Menderes did not have
this kind of power. Opposite Menderes was an opposition leader like
Ismet Inonu. And for the coup there was clearly an army lying in
ambush on 27 May 1960.
There is no-one to oppose Erdogan. There is no person who can present
an alternative to him, no political party and no army threatening a
coup. He has an incredible power monopoly in his hands. It is for this
reason that I have never given credence to his "lieutenants" and his
"advisers."
Powerful politicians like Tayyip Erdogan surround themselves with "yes
men" who are usually nothing and who will never amount to anything.
There is no-one within Erdogan's "inner circle" that can raise
objections, no "adviser" that can "tell him what is right" when
necessary. His "advisers" are people who would be nothing were it not
for Tayyip Erdogan. These people are not in the least bit important.
They are a dry crowd of "yes sir" people. What matters is Tayyip
Erdogan, who has amassed an amazing power monopoly.
This Tayyip Erdogan appears "to be on the decline" while not losing
any of his ruling authority, and in fact while being able to rally
tens of thousands of people and keep on roaring. There is now debate
as to how he will go down in history, and what words will be used to
describe him. This is the real tragedy.
The article I quoted above reads: "It is clear that Erdogan has
adopted the methods used by the generals he defeated. His response to
the Gezi crisis was straight out of the old Kemalist coup handbook:
brutality, black propaganda, conspiracy theories and a whole lot of
bad intent." This accurately reflects Erdogan's current "tragic"
situation, does it not?
Besides, it does say, "We are witnessing a Shakespearean tragedy in
its purist form" adding, "But this one threatens to turn into a
national disaster."
The person who penned those lines judges that "the broad coalition
that brought the AKP [Justice and Development Party] to power might
well have ended forever." They spoke with a textile merchant from
Kayserii at the weekend. He sent his employees to the Tayyip Erdogan
rallies by bus but his daughter, who wears Islamic headdress, is not
talking to him because he supports the prime minister. Not a day goes
by when they are not arguing in the home. The Guardian writer asks
this Kayseri textile merchant whether or not he supported changes to
the constitution that would make Erdogan a French or Russian-style
president." This pro-Erdogan textile merchant from Kayseri changed his
tone and answered:
"We cannot make this man the president. Not now. Tayyip would ruin us all."
That is the prediction of one of his key supporters concerning his
work for the decade to come.
Meaning?
Meaning, Tayyip Erdogan's situation is a "tragedy." But now that he is
in this situation, to afford him another 10 years of absolute rule by,
to quote him, increasing the powers of the police could turn into "a
tragedy for Turkey."
[Translated from Turkish]