Religion and politics
The view is fantastic. What a place to take an early evening glass of tea. The sprawling tea room is set on a natural balcony overlooking the fawn peaks of the Cudi mountains (pronounced like "Judy") spreading into the distance, touched by a golden evening light. We're in the Kurdish town of Sirnak, which has been made gay by a profusion of election bunting spread across the main crossroads.
The men in the open-air tea room seem to be grouped strictly, by age and dress. At one table men in their forties, wearing white shirts and dark suit-trousers. They all have small neat moustaches. At another, older men, wizened and mostly bearded, wear looser-fitting clothes. We are invited to sit down and take a glass of tea with a group of men in their sixties. They wear crisp, careful, ironed white shirts, dark waistcoats and large elongated flat caps. They have big, bushy moustaches. I never get round to asking what they do, but they have an air of mild prosperity, small businessmen or shopkeepers.
It's all very relaxing, the click of worry beads in their large hands, the scent of Turkish tobacco, aromatic rather than choking in the open air, a low murmur of conversation in Kurdish. The men are nearly all smoking roll-ups of pale local tobacco through Noel Coward style black cigarette holders. Many of them keep their tobacco in large silver cases - one, I notice, has a rather incongruous marijuana-leaf embossed on the front. There is rather a lot I want to understand but this is a gentle, translated conversation, not an interview with a politician, so I am happy to go with the flow rather than relentlessly herd the talk in one direction. I do expect to hear a fair amount on the Kurdish question, but instead we end up talking about the central issue in the elections: religion and politics.
First I do ask about the troop build-up. One man says there has been a lot of activity, another says not more than normal. They seem to agree that there will be no invasion unless there is a big terrorist attack. If that happens, then probably something will be done. I sip the tea. The men tell me they call it "smugglers tea"鈥 it's from Syria. All the sweeter, I say.
One man seems to be a spokesman for the group despite not wearing the team uniform. No cap or moustache and he's wearing a light-weight suit jacket, so perhaps he's something of a free-thinker, or perhaps it's the modern day dress of a Kemalist. He is attacking the ruling party, the which I've described below as mildly Islamic. "They are deceiving people. It is wrong to use religion like that. The nation should come first in politics. Religion is between each man and Allah."
The statue of Ataturk at our backs should be beaming at such sentiments. But the founder of modern Turkey, clutching a book of his speeches, is as stern as ever. His revolution in the 1920s and 30s was quite astonishing. He transformed the tattered remains of the Ottoman empire into a modern nation state and then dragged it, with remarkably little screaming, into the West's version of the 20th Century. He outlawed traditional dress, banned the Arabic script, introduced universal education and a legal system based on the Swiss code, praised the emancipation of women, and shoved religion right out of politics. Here he is revered by many as a secular saint.
Although no-one would dare to do so here, there is much one could mock about Ataturk. Except he was so extraordinarily successful. He balanced on the high wire of history and everything tells you he should have fallen off, that his revolution should have ended in failure and the triumph of conservatism. But it didn't. He stayed on the wire, won, and it worked.
Indeed secularism, the doctrine that religion has no place in politics, has become in itself almost untouchable, holy writ. That is why it filled some with such horror that their country might elect a president whose wife wears a headscarf.
It is his legacy that some fear the AK, a religious party, is trying to unravel, as several comments to an earlier post point out. Thanks for so many interesting remarks. Ayse Sarici, I think that is the first time someone has made a nice comment on the way I look for about 20 years. And you are right that the proximate cause of the election was parliament not agreeing on a presidential candidate - but I think the e-coup coloured and pre-ordained that failure. Fascinating analysis from Ronald Kramer.
Some questions for Mehmet Kara and Cagatay Ertan: what do you mean by secularism under threat? When people talk about the rise of political Islam do we in Western Europe mean the same as you in Turkey? Cagatay points out that the president blocked some "fundamentalist interventions". True the AK wanted to allow state money to go to Koranic schools. They wanted women to be able to wear the headscarf in universities and libraries. But in Britain such things would be seen as fairly normal and legitimate expressions of religion: church schools (and Islamic and Jewish ones) are indeed funded by the state in Britain. France is a determinedly secular state, but would Mrs Sarkozy be banned from the Elysee Palace if she wore a Christian cross around her neck? So are you really worried about an increase in religious sentiment, rather than the rise of fundamentalism, or political Islam? Both are legitimate concerns to secularists but they are not the same thing. Or are you saying that there is no difference?
Is there real fundamentalism in Turkey?
I'm writing now in the city of Cizre. There are many women wearing the full chador-type veil, with a white piece of cloth across the mouth. People who've been here before tell me this would have been unthinkable five years ago. So something is changing: but how political is it? Every time I try to pin down an example of "fundamentalism" in Turkey it vanishes, leaving nothing but the headscarf issue behind. Councils that ban alcohol? I've heard the story, but you tell me where, I can't find it. But will Turkey one day go the way of Iran, or Afghanistan under the Taliban? My waters tell me it's unlikely, but maybe I would have had a gut instinct in Kabul in the 1950s or Tehran in the 60s that would have been wrong. And Gul Berna Ozan: is there such a thing as Christian Capitalism or Islamic Capitalism? Some say that the AK party is all about a new mixture, Islamic Calvanism, which is explored in .
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 成人快手's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Honestly, how can you compare wearing headscarf with wearing a cross. I dont know if there is equivalent of Iran or Afganistan in the Christian World. The thing about extremism of Islam, it is never enough till you live in a Sariat ruled world. Europeans don't get the idea of being forced to live in a dark world. These people see democracy as a tool that they can use till they get what they want. The idea of an Islamic Demotratic Republic looks great for States and some European Countries. They think this can be a model to other Islamic countries. What they don't get is there will never be an ISLAMIC Democratic Country. Because when you let Islam in politics, it will definetly be a Sariat rule. No other way.
PS. In your last article, you compared Turkish Army with British existance in N.Ireland. Difference is Turkish Army is in Turkey but British Army is occupying another country. Free Ireland :)
Like N.Ireland I think one must understand the roots of any issue and the story of Hasan Hayri and the Lausanne Treaty does much to give one a clue about the nature of the Turkish state.
Although some could argue that Kemal Ataturk did force through some 'progressive' reforms, it would be like saying, well, Hitler did do something for the Middle Classes in Germany. Because for the Kurds he was a mortal danger and he pursued a policy of forced assimilation, forced depopulation and racist ideology of 'How Happy is he who calls himself a Turk' which you will see written into the hills of 'Kurdistan' in big chalk letters.
The Treaty of Sevre nailed the coffin of the Kurds.
NW Kurdistan is a country under Turkish military occupation much like N.Ireland was and Kurds are not free to speak out openly. Please take care not to ask Kurds what they think when there are other 'Turkish' spies around. To get a true balance ask in confidence.
Ask a Kurd what happened in Cizre in 1993.
This was an enjoyable article -- very open and fresh. You are raising excellent issues into the light and quite objectively this time! A couple things: First, Turkey must be praised for being so conscious and scrutinous about the division between religion and politics. Ataturk, the impetus for such a wise approach, lived not so long ago -- it's great to see people who remember his intentions clearly. And let's not forget that many Turks died for this socially-integral cause! In the US, people are not so careful and our president can ban important scientific research and run on a really weak platform precisely because he strums his guitar to the tune of extremely religious ideas that have run rampant and lulled a good part of our population to sleep. Second, and probably more important, few of us in the West know what it's like to have violently fundamental national neighbors whose people can migrate in and spread their brand of fanatical religious order uneducated populations. Turks have so far done a marvelous job of staying out of the fundamental abyss that has captured the region (and even the US) Turks are wise to be hypervigilant.
If you get the chance please ask what people think about Turkey backing the formation of Kurdistan in Northern Iraq. Once Kurdistan is formed then any Kurds living in Turkey who are not happy can always go to their newly formed country. Then everyone will be happy.
What has to happen in Turkey is that Baykal has to quit. I dont blame the AKP for the threat of secularism. The only reason they have been successful in gaining leadership is because of Baykal. Due to him CHP's votes are probably 1/3 of what they would receive with a different leader. He is old, useless, and has no success in politics. His stubborn attitude has destroyed the left wing in Turkey. He is the reason why AKP can threaten our secular state.
As for the Kurds in Turkey they should not forget that Cizre, Diyarbakir and Sirnak are Turkish cities and will always remain as such. They should also rememeber that they are Turkish citizens and if they would like a change they can do so like any other Turkish citizen (be it of Turkish or Kurdish origin)and that is through politics. Supporting a terrorist organization that kills children and innocent people is not the way to go and makes them just as guilty.
My last warning goes to the new government that will come in nt monday. Dont forget that the South East of Turkey is a part of Turkey. You can't sit in Ankara and Istanbul and solve the problems in Diyarbakir. There is a lot of investment needed. It is neglect of the region that has brought about the terrorism, and also the foreign assistance to the PKK only strengthened them. Investment needs to speed up especially in industry. Something must be done about unemployment and education. Those are the two biggest problems in the south east right now. A person who is left idle and not included into the economy will only be turned against it.
Lastly Mr. Mardell you referred to Sirnak as a Kurdish city. I would just like to make a kind caution to you that Sirnak is actually a Turkish city.
The secular is always at greater risk from the religious than vice-versa. A secular society is generally happy to allow religious activity. Islam, however, is in the position that christian churches were in a few centuries back (ie. fully politicised) and makes no bones about how its society members should live. Secular and independant spiritual thinking is doomed in such an environment. In an empoverised country people are too busy trying to stay alive to care generally, however in the West where people enjoy real choice in lifestyle, a majority from a politicised religious background will be a bitter pill to swallow for the rest of us. I fail to see how bringing more Islamic nations into a united Europe can curtail this dark road.
If it weren't for the Sevre Treaty, there would quite literally have been no homeland for the Turks. And we are very sure that the occupiers would not have been anywhere near as compassionate as we have been to other races on our soils. Kurds only suffer so much because they refuse to accept that they are in a country that has the legal language of Turkish which they refuse to learn. How would the Enlish like it if the Welsh, Scottish and Irish refused to learn English?
We should open the EU doors to Turkey in order to support those sectors which want to live in a secular Democracy.
Being a member of the EU (or the commitment to become so) is the best guarantee for Turkey to keep going on reforms and to respect civil liberties.
And it would show that Europe is not only a Christian club, but a space for modern societies, based in secularism and not religion.
I didn't know much about Kemal Ataturk until I read some of the background on the Winchester Whisperer blog - and this series on Turkey is very enlightening.
Although I've yet to be convinced it will end up in the EU. I think that an alliance will aggregate around Sarkozy to use delaying tactics for many years.
Is there real fundamentalism in Turkey?
It's a good question. The fundemantals in Turkey are like the Snowball in Animal Farm of G.Orwell. It is said to be the most dangerous threat for 80 years. But how strange that nobody sees any clue about it. It's a fact-free paranoia. Authoratarian regimes always invent some "enemies" to survive. Later, they start believing their own lies.
The link you give for Islamic Calvinism is very nice. Can you believe that some years ago secularists blamed these entrepreneurs as the capitals of sharia? The government institutions prevented these people to bid in tenders, they were calling these companies as "green capitals". A die-hard secularist, relative of mine, were complaning that she likes the chocolate of Ulker (i.e. the biggest chocolate factory in Turkey, one of green capitals), but she refused to purchase it. It seems they'll stay deprived of the sweet taste of democracy chocolate also.
The Treaty of Sevre:
Leyla, in Wales I'm sure the Welsh would not like the English to not allow them to speak Welsh.
And thats the point. The Kurds do not have any autonomy. No recognition at all. In the UK there is devolved government to all the parts of the UK.
So what is wrong with the Kurds having some sort of autonomy where they can have bi lingual parliament and govern themselves but still be part of a federation with Turkey.
What is wrong with self determination. Why not have a referendum and ask the Kurds what they want?
It is rather disingenuous of Mr Mardell to compare Turkey's secular traditions with certain British policies that are patently ill-advised. Surely, Blair's decision to support religious schools was a fundamental mistake. At any rate, is it really necessary to remind Mr Mardell that Britain is not a secular country? Indeed, I fail to understand how England can consider itself free while the established Church retains substantial privileges in Whitehall. Surely England has long suffered under a mild form of theocracy, and Mr Mardell knows that. We have a lot to learn from the Turks.
The Turks have their own secular traditions, of which they are justifiably proud. These may well be somewhat different from their counterparts in other European countries, but the Turks certainly don't need to learn from us or from the French how to conduct their own affairs. They are a great nation and they can think for themselves.
As I see it, the real problem with the AKP's ideologues is not yet what they have done. They haven't been able to achieve their core objectives yet, other than having filled the Turkish Civil Service with partisan supporters. Perhaps they haven't been able to make more mischief owing as much to their own incompetence as to the vigilance of the Turkish president and the judiciary.
The real problem is rather the AKP's strident opposition to the fundamental values, institutions and traditions of the Turkish republic. In short: the problem is what the AKP is and what it stands for. In the life of nations, ideas are far more important than mere deeds. The AKP openly threatens a certain idea of Turkey. The rest is detail.
Fortunately, the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment do not belong to any one geography or to any one nation. They are the property of all mankind. Most Turks have adopted these as their own - and indeed made them their own in trying circumstances. Political freedom, scientific progress, reason as the basis for action, a concept of citizenship that relies on bonds of loyalty and not on race or religion! These are the very ideals to which the Turks have pledged their allegiance.
Secular Turkey may not be perfect, but at least it has got its heart in the right place. The rest of Europe ought to support secular Turkey with all its might. This is not the time to be blinded by the ideologues and opportunists of the AKP. The future of our continent is at stake in the battle for the Turkish soul.
Deniz writes: "Lastly Mr. Mardell you referred to Sirnak as a Kurdish city. I would just like to make a kind caution to you that Sirnak is actually a Turkish city."
I agree with many things that Deniz wrote (oh, to live the sweet day when Baykal leaves politics!), but I don't understand this statement about 艦谋rnak.
"You refer to Aberdeen as a Scottish city. May I point out that it is actually an English city?"
No, you may not. We call Aberdeen Scottish because this is a city where Scots live. Bagpipes, kilts, haggis - the works ;-)
Just imagine that the founders of Great Britain would have called the whole country England, and had insisted that all citizens are English. Suppose they would call everyone who claimed to be Scottish or Welsh a liar and a traitor, put them in jail. They would put billboards up all over "England" (including Scotland and Wales) telling the people each and every day of the year how wonderful it is to be English. Their ancient languages and culture would be forbidden and their whole identity would be denied. Can you imagine this? And then imagine there NOT being armed resistance and terror groups fighting for independence?
But they didn't call the whole country England. They called it Britain. And so Aberdeen is, apart from being a Scottish city, also a British one. But not an English one. And there are no terrorists in Scotland and Wales.
This is the hypocrisy of the Turkish nationalism. When I visited Turkey as a tourist in 1990, my friends told me there were no Kurds in Turkey, just "mountain Turks". When president 脰zal once commented on state television, somewhere around 1993, that his mother was actually Kurdish, there was a big uproar. Why? It was the FIRST time the K-word had been used on Turkish television. Separatism! The nation in danger! How happy is he who calls himself a Turk! Army, please heeeeelp!!
It would be nice to see the Turkish nationalism loose some of its spastic reflexes and racist undertones. A bit of common sense would help. But we will probably have to wait a long time for that. Even getting rid of Deniz Baykal may happen sooner...
When I read some of the comments and stories I feel like I come from a different country. I was a kid in the 80s and a teenager in the 90s. I'm too young to remember the left-vs-right struggle of the 70s, but in the 80s and 90s I haven't seen such thing as a secularist elite ruling class in Turkey. As a pro-secularist Turk, am I supposed to be from the elite ruling class? Yes, it is true that there is an atmosphere of devision within Turkey of pro-secularist and traditionalist, but I don't think you can call the secularists as the ruling class.
Ask any left-wing supporter in Turkey and they will tell you the police force is all conservative right-wing. I was involved in the education system, and most of the education in Turkey is controlled by what I can only describe as religious conservatives (YOK and universities are a different issue). The main politician in the 80s was Ozal, and he was conservative. All his friends are now with the AKP and in power, so it was exactly the same group of people that ruled Turkey in the 80s under different title.
My thinking is completely opposite to what majority of people attribute the past failures of the system to the secularism. I do believe one of the reasons why Turkey hasn't progressed as much as it should have is because most of the senior civil servants are conservative be it religious or nationalist, and have been conservative for as long as I can remember. If religion in Turkey was under threat in the past, how come we have more imams than doctors, more mosques than schools? It is the free-thinking education that has never existed in Turkey (compulsory religious brainwashing, under the tile of morals and religion for all pupils). And yes, YOK should be independent, keep politics out of universities.
I agree with Gul Berna Ozan that AKP is an opportunist group backed by their business affiliates. Trying to sell cola-turka in all schools is an example of their opportunism. And it is their families and cousins that are in senior positions not the relatives of the pro-secularists, and for as long as conservatives rule the country Turkey will not progress as much as it should.
Obviously, it is good to have clear definitions to work with. For a minute I was rather surprised by the definition of secularism as "the doctrine that religion has no place in politics". Although, of course, this is the logical definition in the context of Turkey.
I admit, that I had been thinking in a philosophical context more than a political one: That "secularism" has become a kind of fundamentalist religion which forbids any deviation from a strictly materialist viewpoint. In practice, it does seem that "Secularism" has unfortunately become a postmodern position that reduces all value systems to a meaningless and nihilistic equality. Presumably because otherwise these values and beliefs would undermine the world of hedonistic consumerism which forms the socio-economic backbone of the current global system.
Nevertheless, I don't see how true separation between state and religion can be possible -especially in a multi-cultural democratic system: Laws reflect belief systems in very practical ways. Catholic countries have laws regarding birth control and abortion. In the Philippines, Divorce is still impossible and can create a complex legal situation if a foreigner divorces his Filipina wife in a foreign country. Under these circumstances, the man would be divorced while his wife would still be bound by the marriage contract. America, the arch-priest of secularism even prints "In God we Trust" on its money.....
So how can a state honerably tolerate, encourage or discourage, practices which are abhorrent to its citizens -and isn't this abhorrence the result of historically developed cultural beliefs and practices which have grown out of the local religious or philosophical belief system? On what other grounds can a state oppose (or tolerate) for example, prostitution, drugs -or even the death penalty? If there is state tolerance for a range of "religious" practices -then how is "religion" to be defined? Is witchcraft and satanism to be included? Why should hedonism (in lifestyle advertisements and media publications) be more acceptable than acetism (or vice versa)? Where are the socially accepted limits -who is to decide (and how)? Can this be done locally (and democraically) -or only globaly in a one size fits all manner?
Why do these fundamental philosophical questions seem to play such a small part in our normal socio-political debates? Has "secularism" also come to imply an end to all intellectual enquiry that is not strictly practical? It would indeed seem so.
Clearly, there can be different levels of tolerance and understanding for the different belief systems that compose a society -but I don't see how secularism can function as an absolute ideal. On the other hand, I don't see why fundamental human problems involving belief systems need to be as neglected as they appear to have become in our so called secular society. Just at a time when globalisation is making the consequences of our behaviour and belief systems even more a question of survival than before -it seems that we have become so foolishly pragmatic that we have forgotten how to deal with such questions -except in extremely narrow minded terms.
In this context, I found it interesting to read that the Ottoman empire ruled on the basis of religion and not ethnicity. This itself can be a paradox: If ethnicity is linked to culture, then a denial of the importance of ethnicity can also result in a practical denial of a person's cultural identity. From experience, I know that discrimination can be extremely painful -but in some cases, a lack of discrimination can also become a very painful denial of one's natural identity.
Incidentally, is it true that the Turkish armed forces are constitutionally charged with defending "secularism" (as defined in the blog)? If so, then the armed forces would seem to be in a very difficult position.
The overt nationalism in Turkey on either side of the Kurdish/Turkish arguments could use a toning down. Until there is an ability to reason through disagreements then both sides are doomed to live in the mess that they have created. Until then, the idea of an enlightened secular democracy is only half fulfilled.
In response to the remark about what the Irish, Scottish, or Welsh would think about being forced to learn English - they were. For several centuries of English colonial expansion, the cultures of the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cornish, Manx and others were ground under the idea that the English culture was supreme. How many people still speak Cornish or Manx? Other than the odd academic linguist, zero. Until the repeal of the Penal Laws in the mid-1800s the Irish was outlawed in Ireland and the act of being Catholic was a crime.
The Turks are not the only ones who delude themselves into thinking that everyone is a happy citizen of Turkey and forces their language upon others. When was the last time the French recognized a citizen who wanted to be referred to as a Breton, Alsacian, or Basque?
@ albertsanjuan (8): no we should never let Turkey in because Turkey isn't European and it would cost us too much.
Those who advocate Turkish accession are committing cultural treason to Europe.
About your comment Ronald, In Turkey we dont distinguish based on race, we distinguish based on nationality. So when I say that Sirnak is Turkish I mean that it belongs to the Turkish Republic. There are both Turkish and Kurdish ethnicities and probably Arabs that live in Sirnak. But lets not forget that they are Turkish citizens. What ties us is our citizenship not our race, or religion. I think it is a very big error to compare Turkey to England or Britain as we are not similar politically. Every country has its own way of running its affairs. As for the Ozal era, yes perhaps back in 1993 Turkey was blind to the Kurdish population and it was a big shock for the people when he announced his mother was Kurdish. But Turkey has changed a lot since then. If Ocalan was caught back in 1993 guaranteed he would be hung right now. But society and people change. Turkey has changed dramatically.
Turkey has made major moves to introduce laws concerning media in foreign languages, education in foreign languages. Now it is time for the different ethnicities to show the nation that they are a part of Turkey and not people who want to separate. Instead of supporting the PKK and DTP the citizens of Kurdish origin should promote their background, their way of life, their culture instead of inciting hateful thoughts. Look at the examples of RojTV and MEDTV. Both filled with hateful propoganda. Ofcourse there are still flaws in the system but you cannot make a country change into a place like Canada in one day. We have to unite together and learn about each other. The republic has changed to allow this kind of movement, it is up to the minorities in Turkey to make use of it and include themselves in the country.
Let us still not forget that with economic well being these things will evolve. Unfortunately in Turkey there is no party that can bring us such benefits. That is why you vote for the best of the worst, which in my opinion is CHP.
So the only solution to the problem is that Kurds quit seeing the PKK as a solution and use the laws under the republic to promote their culture and people. The parliament has to bring incentives to companies that plan on investing in the region. Development aid is just going to be wasted to corruption. Its upto private investment to solve the problem.
Dear Mark,
Thanks for addressing the issue of Islamic Calvinists in response to my comment. I have been working on the process of industrialisation in Anatolian towns for almost two decades and find it absurd that the European Stability Initiative鈥檚 popular study got so much publicity. This study has no theoretical basis and empirical credential to claim that a new form of Islamic capitalism is emerging in Turkey. Turkey has more than 80 provinces and the study looks at a single one, Kayseri which has always been famous with its canning entrepreneurs.
There are pious and successful capitalists all across Anatolia but the rules of the economic game is not defined by Islamic law or norms; it is capitalism and profit making. Their success is closely linked to the economic liberalisation policies and urbanisation. Anatolian capitalists have supported AKP and they feel deep antipathy towards cosmopolitan capital and Istanbul based businesses. But, this is again a political issue related to power balance and economic struggle in the country.
I would like to recommend two of my publications below if you would like to read a different point of view on this matter.
"Trusted markets: the exchanges of Islamic companies", [with M. Cokgezen], Comparative Economic Studies, Vol.48/1, 2006
"Limits to alternative forms of capitalisation: the case of Anatolian holding companies", [with M. Cokgezen], World Development, Vol.31/12, 2003
Yours Sincerely,
Gul Berna Ozcan
Mr heavallo azad ;
first of all i dont believe that you are kurd and i am %100 percent sure that you are not kurd from Turkey !
and you have no idea about the kurdish problem in Turkey.
i am kurdish myself..we have seen people like you in diyarbakir, coming to our houses and forcing us to pay money for pkk militans !
we do not want violence anymore, as a kurd i have total freedom to speak and write kurdish.
there has been mistakes in the past by previous Turkish governments but freedoms and rights better than ever today.
and because of that we do support AKP and Mr erdogan as well.
our main problem is unemployment and we want peace and democracy
pkk gangsters does not represent us !
Truly nationalism is the new colonialism. The majority ethnicity in so-called nation states tend to oppress the ethnic minorities as de Tocqueville warned: tiranny of the majority
Some of the support for the right of the Kurds to establish a bi-lingual nation completely overlooks that there is no Kurdish language as such; there are many distinctive languages spoken by Turkish Kurds.
Given that Abdullah Ocalan, for the sake of coherency, ran the PKK in Turkish it would seem strange indeed for the state itself to do anything other.
Kurdish children can learn in the language of their choice, but this must be done as well as learning the national curriculum in the national language. I, from the top of my head, cannot think of any Western nations that do otherwise.
A curriculum taught in several regional languages would lead to the sort of tribalism that has torn regions of the Middle East apart.
The bigger concern regarding education of Kurds is the widespread reluctance in Kurdish areas of Turkey to send female children to school at all. It is with its lack of will to intervene in this regard that the Turkish government is failing its Kurdish citizens.
Empowerment must come via education, not violence.
I am foreigner living in Turkey and I just want to say that I am not satisfied with the reports of the 成人快手 on the Turkish elections. That the issue is about the role of islam in society is certainly a view of some of the political parties, mainly that of the party that founded the Turkish secular republic, the CHP. But is it true ? Your correspondents seem to believe that and are writing mainly on the Islam issue. Knowing many AKP voters personally, I have the strong feeling that they vote for the party because it offers economical stability and much needed reforms. Among these voters are people who look as secular and modern as the average CHP voter. You seem totally to miss the central point of Turkish politics, steering as you are on the simple compass of "secularism" vs "religion".
Congratulations to the AKP. What a well deserved result, after making the poor poorer then arriving on their doorsteps bearing gifts of coal (in July?) and gold coins. No wonder there was such a landslide.
I was shocked when I was teaching English a few days ago to my Turkish students in Bursa. When I asked them what they would do with a million Euros, out of 12 students only 1 said to build a school. The rest? Build mosques. This is a country with twice as many mosques as schools, and children at state school only able to go to school for half a day each day due to not enough teachers or schools. Class sizes - around 50 in Bursa, around 70 further east. I think it's time to completely remove religion from politics and focus on Education, but I have grave doubts about the future now.
Assuming a modern but democratic movement with a deep islamist agenda as a political wing can exist in Turkish politics is just a romanticized perspective of looking at the situation. Quiet eurocentric also.
By such, one assumes that islamic point of view will act as rational as the secular one when it gets in to power. In the secular Turkey, nobody today intervenes in to anybody`s religious sphere in their daily lives. Secularism just prevents that private religious sphere to expand in to state affairs.
On the other hand, many of the islamic state supporters today lookthrough a conservative religious window to the rest of the society, and declare all other than themselves to be sinners that should be shown the right way. This is a dangerous perspective, especially when you gather the political power with legislation and municipality under your hand.
The assumption that islamic point of view will act as rational as the secular one ignores the fact that todays Islam, misinterpreted by its followers, cannot be watered down to get thinner, as it does reject any agenda other than itself.
You cannot have a westernized legislation, jurisdiction and islamic roots together, as in time, Islam slowly corrupts or totally rejects and replaces them all with its own. It's in its nature, and this nature is the main reason today why some so called islamic states suffer of opression.
Although Islam, as written in Koran, is a religion of tolerance, its sad to see that false application by its'followers in today`s world has no tolerance for the "other". We have seen this many times in our republic's short history, the closest major one being the Madimak Hotel being set on fire by the mob. (Sivas, July 2, 1993) 37 people died in the fire, and most of the mob were not even.
Freedom of speech is not a one-side-sharp knife, if one really is willing to have it, then s/he should also have tolerance when the right to criticize Islam is used. And here comes the problem; Islam and its current dogmas cannot be criticized. It is not allowed.
I have been to Koran schools when I was a kid, to a several of them. I have seen what is taught over in those so called schools, and I do not want any other young children in my country to be a victim of such hate speech against the regime and its founders.
Thats the main reason I do not enjoy an Islamist Party in rule. Cause I believe that it will not respect the republic and its principals by heart.
@Deniz (18):
Dear Deniz,
Again, I agree with most of the things you say. Certainly, Turkey has changed a lot, and for the better. I'm not sure the CHP can claim much credit for these changes (they have this thing with changing, they are, well, not very good at it :-), but democracy and minority rights have definitely vastly improved.
My issue is with the naming of things. Of course, 艦谋rnak is Turkish in the sense that it is part of the Turkish Republic. But it is Kurdish in the sense that most of its citizens are Kurdish. This is not a really important distinction (we're all human!), but unfortunately it becomes more important when people try to suppress it.
People here tell me that in Turkey there are Turks, Kurds, Laz, 脟erkez and a few dozen other ethnic groups, living side by side in harmony. Great. And then they continue: "And we are all Turks". I can understand that Turks are Turks, but how come Kurds are Turks? Laz are Turks? Isn't this a bit confusing? So "Turk" is the name of an ethnic group, but also the name for all citizens of Turkey, is that it?
Some people are trying to solve the confusion by talking about "T眉rkiyeli", which means "person from Turkey", when they mean the citizen. But when they do this, the nationalists are at their throats (literally often, they can be really ferocious), claiming they are separatist traitors.
When Erdo臒an talked about a first identity (meaning citizenship of Turkey) and a second identity (meaning a person's ethnic identity), the reactions by Baykal and other nationalists were downright spastic. It would be nice if the nationalists would get a grip on reality.
For now, they are maintaining that apples are apples and pears are apples too, and they seem ready to kill you just for mentioning the word "fruit"...
Deniz, let's hope that your namesake Deniz Baykal finally calls it a day after 4 lost elections in a row. Or would he continue until he has reached defeat #10?
Hi Mark
I really like your comments and analysis, especially when you started covering Turkey.
Your comments are objective and to the point. However, at times it is rather too perfectionist pointing out the imperfections in Turkey. In reality that exist everywhere.
On the other hand you are not as harsh as Sarah Rainsford of the people you are covering but very descriptive. I totally agree with your comments on the army and the armed forces in fact many authorities in turkey are not always in your face in the South East. I think this is a pay off from the years of experience in that region. If they invested a bit more and cleverly then perhaps the problem may not have been as severe as it has been.
However, I am originally from middle of Turkey, the heartland. You will then see that the authorities are always in your face. Army (Jandarma) rules like it is middle ages. In my brother鈥檚 wedding they turned up in our house and told us the crowd to be dispersed and everyone to go to bed at 5 past 12 midnight. It was only a handful of family and friends dancing to the stereo. They somehow get into armed forces school, only god knows what they learn, Ministry of Education has no say, but they hardly leave the armed forces premises, paid by state for everything, even they get their houses decorated, shopping done by conscripts and then they pretend they are the guardians!
I wish you could go to my village and cover the elections. Believe me you think you would feel that you have gone too far and ended up in Sunni triangle of Baghdad, just been bombed by US forces! However, It has been like that for many years. The only contribution of the state has there, apart from electricity and phone, bureaucracy. It is neglected worse than Kurdish regions. The candidates used to promise of better roads and even that is not available anymore.
Regarding the point of democracy, in Britain, Tony Blair tried to change the House of Lords. Thank God that failed. Can you imagine a democracy with all elected politicians? Or Army? I rather see peers snoring on the corner of House of Lords, exercising another way of Democracy.
I really wish we could chat longer. I am just eagerly awaiting the next book of Robert Harris. Hoping to be about Turkey but then again I can not think of a story. Then again we, Turks are followers rather than leaders (we only had one leader: Mustafa Kemal) and it is a state policy to do 鈥渘othing鈥. All the civil servants are awaiting their retirement. I think this is one of the reasons why most Turks would like to join Europe to get their freedom and discover themselves.
Reforming Turkey's codes and laws to comply with European legal norms and to drag Turkey into the European fold is a funny way for Erdogan and the AKP party of going about to bring fundamentalism to Turkey.
Turkey's prickly and corrosive nationalism is a by-product of the ideology of Kemalism and the cult of personality around Kemal Ataturk. The man is now a God and you cannot question anything he stood for whether it is still relevant in the 21st century or not. All the organising forces of the Turkish state -army, civil service, institutions, the elite- are tasked with the protection of the supremacy of the Turkish state over and from its citizens and not the other way around as in all other true democratic countries. A more virulent by-product is the "deep state" and the meddling military's self-declared role of protectors of Kemalism.
I cannot help but smile at the double standards in the debate about the Kurds in Turkey. The state's ideology about them -"mountain Turks", 'we are all Turks" etc"- is a complete antithesis to Turkey's position regarding Turkish minorities in other countries.
In Greece, Turkey objects to its minority described as Greek citizens. In Cyprus they demand a separate state for the Turkish minority there after they ethnically cleansed the majority Greek-Cypriots from their ancestral lands now occupied by the Turkish army. In northern Iraq they demand autonomy for the Turkoman minority there.
The rise of Erdogan and the AKP Party is the first crack in the Kemalist edifice. This is the real worry for the "secularists" and not any Islamic hidden agendas or European conspiracies to weaken and break up Turkey.
Hello Mark;
I just want to thank you a lot for your unbiased and highly informative articles covering Turkish politics and society鈥︹. However, i believe any socio-political analysis, which fails to investigate the ethnic roots of the Generals and other high-ranking officers who control the Turkish Army, as well as the elite who control the bureaucracy and judiciary, will fail to explain one of the main root causes of always-ongoing tensions between the above-described powerful elements, and the popularly elected politicians.
I want to indicate the fact that the majority of the Turks in Aegean and Marmara regions of T眉rkiye are descendants of the Balkan Muslims (Albanians, Bosnians, Pomaks, Macedonians, etc) who have (or had to) immigrate to those two regions over the centuries. Over seven million people with Balkan background are estimated to be living in T眉rkiye. However, their numbers are deliberately kept at a much lower level by the official statistics in order to avoid any possible political backlashes. And it was those Muslim immigrants (and now their descendants) who have controlled and ruled (and still control and rule) the country since many centuries for they traditionally have occupied the upper echelons of the Turkish society --- the Army and the bureaucracy.
For example, almost all leading Young Turks, who, forcibly, took over the Ottoman army and administration in late 1800s, and led the empire from one disastrous battle to another battle until it was dismantled, were mostly, either Balkan-born or Balkan-descendant Army officers and bureaucrats. For instance Even Enver Pasa, the Chief of Staff of the Ottoman Forces during the World War-I, was son of a second-generation Balkan immigrants. More importantly, Kemal Atat眉rk, the founder of the republic, was an Ottoman military officer, who was born in Macedonia. Likewise, Kenan Evren, the now-retired general, and his four comrades-in-arms, who, in Sept.12, 1980, made a coup'de tat, were ALL descendants of the above-mentioned immigrants. Similarly, the retired Gn. Cevik Bir, who had forced Erbakan-led coaltion government out of the office in mid 1990ies through (what he, himself later called) a "post-modern coup'de tat" is of Balkan-stock. More crucially, Gn.Yasar B眉y眉kanit, the present Chief of Staff of the Army, has also his roots in the Balkans, so does many other currently-serving Generals and countless number of high-ranking officers. The list goes on. I can give you even a much longer list of bureaucrats (beginning from the Ottoman times to the present day). And what's the point of mentioning all these? Well, the point is to prove that a minority of Turkified elite with guns and power since a long time has been ruling and oppressing the native Anatolian people鈥攚ho are the majority--- based on their Balkan-rooted violent cultural convictions, which includes extreme secularism (at the expense of devout Anatolian muslim folks), extreme nationalism (at the expense of killings of thousands of Armenians, Greeks and now the Kurds), Xenophobia, at the expense of isolating the country economically and politically for most of the twentieth century and now, in the same way, attempting to derail T眉rkiye's efforts joining EU,
Had the real sons of Anatolia were ruling the country instead of the above-described quasi-fascist and Xenophobic minority ethnic group; T眉rkiye would have been a much more tolerant and prosperous society than it is today. That's because Anatolian Turks hardly hate anybody (whether they're Greeks, Armenians, or Kurds), despite being brain-washed by venomous nationalism since the Young Turks started governing from late 1800 to this day.
You're welcome to test this theory (that the Anatolians are more tolerant) by, for example, randomly asking many people in Aegean and Marmara regions (ie, Izmir, Isparta, Manisa, Tekirdag, Canakkale) and the Anatolian region (ie, Kayseri, Konya, Nevsehir, Adana), as to what they think of the Kurds? The answers, for the most part, from the Aegean and Marmara regions you will hear will be something like the followings; "dirty people, bandits, thieves, terrorists", whilst the answers, for the most part, from the Anatolian regions will be something like "poor people, they are our brothers, they aren't different than us", etc.
Prof. Mucahit Bilici*, Dep. of Sociology at the University of Michigan, recently has written a highly provoctive article for the daily Yeni Safak (21.03.2007), after, back in March, the Turkified Balkan establishment made it clear that they want no Anatolian or a pro-Anatolian occupying the president鈥檚 seat in Ankara. Prof. Bilici's article titled as "The Two T眉rkiyes and The Presidental Elections", written in Turkish, provoked many passionate responses and debates across T眉rkiye. The article accused the minority Balkan elite colonizing and oppressing the Anatolians.
Having said all that, i must admit that the Balkanites vs Anatolians issue is more complicated than i tried to simplify. For example, during the recent,1990ies wars in Bosnia and Kosova, most of Anatolian politicans called for an active and direct response engaging the Serbs, whilst majority of those politicians/bureaucrats and military officers with Balkan (ie, Bosnian, Albanian and Macedonian ) roots called for a passive response in solving those conflicts. But at the same time, the Anatolian politicians often call for dialogs ending the historical Armenian, Kurdish, Greek and Cypriot issues, while the majority of those politicians and military officers with Balkan backgrounds not only close their ears to such Anatolian calls for peace, but they also actively try to sabotage them, as they have, for example two years ago, tried to block the governing Anatolian-led AK Party talking with the UN and Greek-Cypriot government in uniting the divided island of Cyprus.
The attitudes of the Balkan-descendants ruling Turkish elite, unsurprisingly, remind me Adolf Hitler, who --despite his being an Austrian--- had transformed Germany into a fascist and murderous nation marching into World War-II. Perhaps it's because of such a similar paradoxy now in T眉rkiye that Prof. Bilici's above-described article stirred so much heated debate across Turkiye.
Anyway Mark, once again thanx again for your enlightening articles and commentaries about the Turks and their country T眉rkiye. Please keep up the good work and hope my comment will contribute a bit more in your research, when writing more enlightening and interesting articles about the Turks and Turkiye.
Regards.
P.S. Kemalists, for the most part, denounce Young Turks ( more correctly their political party, Ittihad and Terraki, which brought the Young Turks to the power) and always try to distance themselves from them, as the country under the leadership of Ittihad and Terakki saw nothing but poverty and disastrous wars after one another until the empire gave in and finally collapsed in 1914 .
Alas, by denouncing Ittihad and Terraki, Kemalists managed to convince nobody but only a few people, as Ataturk and all his friends who found the Republic, have all been involved (one way or the other) with the Young Turks / Ittihad and Teraki movement and spearheaded its ideology, which still continues today, in the form of advocating (in simple words) "one language, one religion, one race=one nation", that created the base and justification for the mass killings of Armenians in 1914, expulsion of the Anatolian Greeks in 1920ies, and now the ongoing war against the Kurds.
Dear Mehmet Aydin;
Regarding your entry 鈥淎t 05:52 AM on 23 Jul 2007鈥, it struck me how ignorant your assertions are: 鈥...by denouncing Ittihad and Terraki, Kemalists managed to convince nobody but only a few people, as Ataturk and all his friends who found the Republic, have all been involved (one way or the other) with the Young Turks / Ittihad and Teraki movement and spearheaded its ideology, which still continues today, in the form of advocating (in simple words) "one language, one religion, one race=one nation", that created the base and justification for the mass killings of Armenians in 1914, expulsion of the Anatolian Greeks in 1920ies, and now the ongoing war against the Kurds.鈥
What rubbish is this? I am sick and tired of fantasy being represented as fact.
It is eminently clear that Turks, whether 鈥淏alkanite鈥 or not, could have pursued all forms of strategies against non-Turks from the moment they appeared on the scene, almost a millennia AGO. So, why did they not? Did Hitler wait until he was contemplating suicide in his bunker to give the order for the 鈥淔inal Solution鈥 or did he do it as soon as he was emerging on the scene as a powerful leader? The comparison you strike between the Young Turks and Hitler sickens me.
Every self-respecting person knows that the terrible events at the END of the Empire were neither planned nor part of a grand strategy. The British had complete access to Ottoman Archives during their two-year occupation of Istanbul and did not find NOT ONE PAGE OF EVIDENCE to implicate the Ottomans; there was no intent or plan to achieve the destruction of any people. IN STARK CONTRAST, the Allies and the World truly discovered and exposed the Nazi鈥檚 Final Solution because of the German archives 鈥 millions of authentic documents detailing the Who, What, When, How, and Why of the operation. Mind you, that operation started years before Berlin was under any threat from anyone, least of all its Jewish citizens. That is the point of hatred: It does not need any excuses or reasons.
As I said, I am sickened by the comparison鈥 If Turks had a death wish for those around them, they would have had to attack their Jewish neighbors, but they did not. The reason is obvious: Jews have never sought to organize around communal goals that targeted Turks with violence. And, the Turks reciprocated. In fact, the communities cooperated and still do inside and outside of Turkey. This fact alone should make you reconsider your statements.
The organization of Greek, Serb, Armenian, etc. communities to create their ethnically pure lands was not the result of anything Turks did to them. Most of these communities began to organize 鈥 as terrorist groups 鈥 in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and confidently declared their intentions to create civil strife and INTER-COMMUNAL warfare. The history of Armenians鈥 Tashnaks and Dashnakstyun (eng sp?) is exceptionally educational; their manifestos painted a very dark picture for Turks and Armenians. The Ottomans 鈥 the Sick Man of Europe (not the Rocky Balboa of Europe) 鈥 could not effectively respond to these groups. It is well documented that due to continuous wars at her borders and a failing economy meant that, outside of the two or three largest cities, there were only a handful of police or gendarme to guard entire cities!!! The civilians were on their own, much like Iraq today, and accordingly banded and reacted communally, as any rational people would do. The result was horrible back-and-forth violence. In Eastern Anatolia, several hundred thousand Armenians and 2-3 million Turks were dead. In Western Anatolia, the numbers are probably far worse, since it is likely that for every Balkanite Turk that actually made it to the Anatolian 鈥渟afe heaven鈥, at least one fell victim to massacres or exhaustion. I am a descendent of the several million that made it. I suspect, there are several million that never made it to Turkey鈥檚 safety.
The treatment of Turks by others and the leadership that safeguarded Turks鈥 interest is something you and others need to learn about. You do not seem to have a good grasp of either.
As a last note, as a descendent of 鈥淏alkanites鈥, I do not recall ANY instance when my parents and grandparents denigrated or defended attacks other groups, inside or outside Turkey. But, I know of towns in Eastern Anatolia, far from the 鈥淏alkanites鈥 that celebrate the forced resettlement of Armenians to Syria. How about 鈥渢hem鈥 apples?
Of course, you may have done a scientific study, so, I would love to hear it.
Baris Tayfun,
I am not going to advocate Mehmet Aydin, however in order to tell information from propaganda, I feel obliged to put forward following comments. You seem not to understand or deliberately disregard a point that Aydin is insinuating rather than explicitly asserting- I presume, he doesn`t want to hurt some brainwashed people鈥檚 sensitivities. The main argument in his article is the forced domination of the Balkan immigrants on the indigenous Anatolians. There are two key phrases in his argument: `Muslim` Balkan immigrants and `turkified` balkan establishment. We need to evaluate the essence and workings of this establishment so that we can concede with or disapprove of his comparisons. Were the individuals he mentions in his argument genuine Muslim Turks? When we take into consideration the tenets of the History of Turkish Revolution, which denounce all other alternative views, we may most possibly regard Aydin`s argument as `rubbish`. Nonetheless, when we refer to first point of view observations and accounts of above-the-average authors and journalists and military personnel who came into contact with the historic figures in Aydin`s argument, we are conscientiously obliged to reconsider those tenets. I recently came across a `scientific` research on the internet, which saved me the time of my own, which includes a compilation of one-on-one interviews and personal observations of some Europeans who visited the Ottoman Land on errand towards the end of the 19th and around the beginning of the 20th centuries. The research comes from a freelance researcher and author Christopher Jon Bjerknes whose 575 page book contains accounts and observations of such people. These personalities` accounts present a picture totally different than the one we are given by the Turkish school education. If you Iook it up on the internet , I believe you will find the experiences of these individuals very appalling, mind-boggling, and at the same time very informative. The book is illustrative of how `takkiye` was an essential quality in some dominant figures` lives like Enver, Talat, Karasu, and Mustafa Kemal.; it is illustrative of how people with hidden agendas manipulated masses, military bodies for some benefits whom we cannot perceive would be of use to without analyzing the global political intricacies of some `distinct` group of people. When you look at these persons` ethnic backgrounds, the environment in which they grew up to be who they were, at some Ottoman cities like Selonika and what it stood for 鈥 and still stands for today 鈥 like where the dominant population originally came from and why they came to that specific city, and what political formations took place there- you feel your established intellectuality shaken. Sephardic Jewish refugees, along with `non-convert` Balkan muslin population, have always been an inseparable part of Turkey` historical, political, and economic formation; how these people came to ostensibly assume Muslim Turk identities like all Morranos, who spreaded around the world escaping the Spanish Inquisition. I also suggest that you look up `Shrine of False Messiah in Turkey May Be Razed`, an article by Jay Michaelson dated May 18, 2007 in the Forward, the respected NewYork magazine which also quoted Mustafa Kemal as saying ` I`m a descendant of Sabbetai Zevi`` in an article by Hillel Halkin on January 28, 1994.
Facts have no business with self-respect. Facts have relativity. To find the balance we need to listen to both sides. We should keep in mind that if we miss the starting point in evaluating history, perceptional and informational errors will follow one another in a chain. Losers` as well as victors` accounts should be taken into consideration so that we have a notion of the most attainable truth.
We should also consider the fact that the history of the Nazi Germany is presented to us by the victors of the WW2. There are no Nazis around to give us their own accounts of what happened. However, science once again comes in handy at disclosing secrets and manipulations. I suggest that, before you condemn the Nazis for the `alleged` crimes they committed, you look up Lechter鈥檚 report on the so-called gas chambers in the `concentration` camps, an Australian research team鈥檚 scientific work in 1999 to find human remnants in Treblinka, Red Cross Reports of the war era, and et al, which are all available on the internet. For, neither you nor I were there to verify either party鈥檚 claims. On the other hand I would like to remind you of the fact that Nazi archives were not accessible till last year, and still not to the ordinary public.
I feel confident that when you delve into the real identities and the psyches of these individuals which are manifest in their speeches , you will come to see what atrocities these individuals were capable of committing. Then Aydin`s argument will most likely make sense to you.
Mehmet Aydin's post along with its praise for Bilici's aptly described "provocative" article is old rhetoric with new make-up. I grew up observing some (now defunct) Islamic groups' propaganda that "Ataturk was Jewish and his blondish hair and bluish eyes along with his secular hence anti-Islam revolution were testimony to this fact". Since the days of such rough and uncivilized rhethoric, Islamism has evolved. Some new minds polished with Western education found a gold mine of points of criticism in Western literature that was ostentatiously shaped by the big games of last century that vilified most things Turkish, be they Islamic or secular. Bilici is a prime example of this trend. Basically what he did was distort the reality of Turkey by introducing artificial divisions of society such as White Turks and Black Turks. These terms may not be new but their use in an Islamist context that seeks antagonism between the immigrants and "original" inhabitants is novel. Many Turks will find his assertions baseless. In fact, Turks of Balkan or Kafkas ancestry are more meritocratic by way of what they brought tho Turkey in terms of their skills, education and hard work and less likely to form networks of "original birthplace" as a way to promote their kin within the society. Questioning their Turkishness or Muslimness is also meaningless and ironically runs counter to the ideals of the religious movement (Nur) where Bilici would not deny had his moral education. it would be fair to say that these are little academic excursions to promote a complicated political agenda by building an arsenal of quasi-academic work of divisions [of ethnicity or birthplace]. Such calculated pragmatism is not unheard of in the history of Islamism in Turkey. Some Islamist may feel they are licensed by the fact that they face fierce opposition by the "other" side. It is still interesting, however, that in their "response" they seem ready to contradict basic principles of fraternity [of being Turkish and Muslim].
It is heartening to hear the concerns of the "secularists" in Turkey. However, Turkey will move towards a true secular democracy when: a) it does not matter whether someone wears a headscarf or a cross, whether someone attends a public school, a Muslim school or a Christian school; ) the rights of religious and ethnic minorities are respected and protected in Turkey as they are in the United States;
c) Christian schools of theology such as the one on Halki are allowed to reopen; d) property that was confiscated from Orthodox Christians in Turkey is returned; e) it is possible for anyone to witness their faith in God (without using violence or coercion). Does anyone in the Turkish majority believe in, or see the merit in these changes? Let me know your thoughts.