Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Feb 10 2007

`Nationalism race’

by
MÜMTAZ’ER TÜRKÖNE

`They shall digest Turkishness!’ says Republican People’s Party (CHP)
Leader Deniz Baykal, speaking about the controversial Article 301 of
the Turkish Penal Code.

The said article defines the crime of `insulting Turkishness,’ whose
commission entails an imprisonment of up to three years. With the
murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, the long-debated
article became the focal point of political discussions. Political
identities and attitudes were divided along the support/opposition
line to the article. Most importantly, some discussions referred to
the provocative climate created by the article as the primary reason
for Dink’s murder. He was prosecuted under the article on the grounds
that he insulted Turkishness.
The crime of `insulting Turkishness’ as outlined in Article 301 may
have different meanings because of speculation as to what
`Turkishness’ connotes. The majority of Turkish citizens are of
ethnic Turkish origin. The Constitution transforms this ethnic
identity to an expression of citizenship bonds. By providing that
`Everyone bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship
is a Turk,’ Article 66 of Turkish Constitution transforms the term
`Turk’ from an ethnic reference to a legal description. For this
reason, skeptics argue that the `Turkishness’ invoked in Article 301
reconstructs the ethnic references and thus contradicts with the
Constitution.
Last November, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan called on civil
society organizations to work on possible amendments to Article 301.
While initial attempts failed, after Dink’s murder, the amendment
process was revitalized. Last week, another meeting attended by civil
society organizations was held to address the issue, but once again,
the attempt was unsuccessful. Just recently, the organizations
announced they reached an agreement on an amended text. The statement
provides that because of the vagueness of the present text, different
meanings could be inferred; hence `Turkishness’ should be replaced by
`Turkish nation.’ The newly invented formula will apparently not work
out. Because the notion `Turkishness’ is preserved intact, the
accompanying term `Turkish nation’ will unlikely eliminate the
different interpretations and change the definition of the existing
crime. Those who put forward this proposal, while using the notion
`Turkishness’ in the ethnical sense, think they use `Turkish nation’
as the match of modern `nation.’ But the problem is not in the
description of the `Turkishness’ notion but in the description of
`Turkish nation’ so as to embrace all Turkish citizens. As such,
those who interpret this article may demand the interpretation of the
`Turkish nation’ in parallel with the ethnic content of
`Turkishness.’
Because they did not agree with the proposal, the leftist Turkish
Physicians Association and labor union DÝSK left the meeting. In its
present form, the amendment proposal lags even behind the already
controversial existing article text.
The entire discussion process shows that supporting the full
preservation of the article in its present form is cited as the
benign manifestation of an extreme nationalist and even chauvinist
stance. Baykal’s remark, `They shall digest Turkishness,’ represents
this extreme nationalist view. CHP asserts Article 301 should be kept
as it is. The only leftist party of Turkish political landscape
aligns itself with the extreme nationalist circles. Let us recall CHP
is a member of Socialist International.
Citing Matt Bryza from the US State Department, Yasemin Çongar noted
that nationalism was viewed by the US administration as the only
common concept of Turkish politics. Bryza asserted the rise of
nationalism was not at an alarming level. He is not so wrong.
Nationalism has already created the discussion ground on which the
upcoming elections would be based. The primary actors of the
political landscape question the nationalist stance of their
opponents. Prime Minister and AK Party leader Recep Tayyip Erdoðan,
while openly accusing the MHP, the party that managed to transform
the nationalist ideology into a political movement, of racism,
asserts that his party adopts a positive nationalist approach. In
order not to lag behind in the race, the only leftist party CHP, as
already noted, adopts an ethno-centric nationalist paradigm as a
political discourse.
Apparently, the secularism-reactionary movement debate that has long
dominated the realm of political discussions is being replaced by the
conflicting views on nationalism. The message President Ahmet Necdet
Sezer gave last week on the occasion of 70th anniversary of the
inclusion of secularism principle in the constitution harbored some
elements that certainly need further discussion. Quite unusually, the
president barred the judiciary from making comments on secularism.
The lack of attention to this message, which did not trigger new
debates, demonstrates how busy the political environment is with the
nationalism discussions.
How does the domination of competition by all political actors along
nationalist lines affect Turkey’s future?
The answer to this question should be sought in the sociological base
that feeds nationalism. Society — particularly the younger
generations — are experiencing a state of common anomie in
connection with the crash of the tradition under modernity’s impacts.
Unemployment, poverty and the huge income disparities as reflected
through the TV screens lead the youth to hatred and anger. They seek
a scapegoat to blame for all mistakes. Nationalism serves as a
channel to embrace this anger. Every challenge in foreign or domestic
policy is transformed into a concrete enemy. The already growing
anti-Americanism is further fostered by nationalism. The developments
in northern Iraq since the US occupation and the likely division of
Iraq in three separate states rise serious concerns. The Kirkuk issue
has become the most important foreign policy issue of the Turkish
state. The EU is accused of double standards and hypocrisy vis-à-vis
Turkey. The Cyprus issue has become the most favorite discussion of
nationalist politics.
The nationalist race among political parties will inevitably deepen
the already existing nationalist concerns. A race that will take
place between the different tones of nationalism will most probably
create a much more serious breakdown than secularism debates did in
the near past. The race that took place along the secularism debate
was easy to control because of its state-oriented character. When the
generals became reluctant to express their concerns over secularism,
the tension was eased in its natural course. Conversely, nationalism
has the potential to politicize the social issues and create distinct
sides by partitioning the entire society into opposing poles. It is
already evident that nationalism embodies strong feelings. A
political discourse seized by sentiments and emotions will only
promote hatred and enmity.
To resolve a political equation with multiple unknown variables, we
must be able to provide a satisfactory answer to this question: Will
the tension that politics creates be reflected in the society in its
entirety? Or will the competition that fosters nationalism remain a
political fantasy detached from the public?It seems that society’s
anticipation of political stability is strong enough to suppress the
herein reviewed nationalist race.