TURKEY – A DEMOCRACY UNDER SUPERVISION
cafebabel.com, France
July 20 2007
On 22 July, the anticipated legislative elections are to take place
across Turkey in an attempt to put an end to the political crisis that
has shaken the country since the presidential election of last May.
Turkey’s Prime minister Erdogan criticised the firearm attacks
against the vans of his electoral campaign (Photo: Serdar/ Flickr)
Institutional crisis, religious folds, the question of Kurds… the
prospect of accession to Ankara continues to evoke many questions.
Hamit Bozarslan, co-director of the Institute of Islamic and Muslim
World Studies at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences
(EHESS), shares his point of view with us.
What are the main characteristics of the EU-Turkey relationship?
The ‘speculative’ side of the relationship has been growing in size
since 2004, and, personally, I regret that the subjects treated by
politicians and the media suffer from a lack of depth. We often forget
to say that in Turkey things do not go well. There is a movement
developing itself here of retreating into one’s shell, a sort of
‘national-socialism’, according to which the Turks would constitute
an ethnic group oppressed by other classes or by other ethnics groups
and for this reason they launch themselves into a liberation war
aiming to exile the Kurds, the Armenians or the Christians… This
internal dynamic is absolutely disastrous, and is not bringing us
together with the European Union.
So the institutional crisis that spread across Turkey following the
recent elections is only the indicator of an older tendency?
Absolutely, since the ‘mentors’ of Turkey- notably Gerhard Schroder
and Bill Clinton- have disappeared from the political scene, we are
contributing to a deterioration of the situation.
What role can the European Union play?
The problem is that since 1999, the year of Turkey’s acceptance
by Brussels, Turkey has been seen to employ a day-to-day form
of politics. It was not a question of setting out a road map or
clearly established criteria – those agreed upon in Copenhagen are
not sufficient. It was widely believed that the Greek, Portuguese
and Spanish models of a post-dictatorship integration were going to
apply here. However, Turkey has never recognised those examples as
models and it is exactly that refusal which is the problem.
Is a breakdown in negotiations with Turkey conceivable?
This option is still very much alive in Turkey where there remain
those at the heart of the Turkish establishment and the army who are
pleading for the withdrawal of Ankara’s candidacy. This is the case
of High General Tuncer Likinc, formally head of the Turkish National
Security Council, one of the most powerful organs in Turkey. Kilinc,
for example, is in favour of a union with Russia! This Europhobia is
more a reflection of the fractures within Turkey herself, it is not
simply about nationalism…
But is an alliance between Turkey and Russia really plausible?
The Turkish economy is so integrated into that of the European Union
that such an alliance with Moscow is not rationally conceivable.
However, there have been so many turnarounds throughout history that
we can never exclude the possibility of that kind of surprise!
What do you think of the project of Nicolas Sarkozy to create a
‘European Space’ that includes Turkey?
It is very hard to construct an image of Turkey in twenty or
thirty years’ time. To think of the EU in terms of territory is
absolutely absurd; and that is the question here. It is a common
dream, a political project… Furthermore, it is essential that the
European Union be much more present as a partner at the heart of the
Mediterranean space, that it become a third party between the Middle
East and the United States.
We have seen the resurgence of questions regarding human rights
in Turkey, the Armenian genocide or the Kurdish minorities, not to
mention the assassination of the Armenian journalist Hrant Dink…
Turkey is a democracy under supervision, at the heart of which
the military gives the ultimatums – even by Internet! It is about
a historic Turkish characteristic: the soldier is considered as a
guardian of the national integrity, a supra-social actor. In Turkey,
there are professors who have been brought before the courts for having
‘insulted’ the memory of Ataturk; Mustafa Kemal is unconditionally
revered. A questioning of the underlying assumption that that ruler’s
transformation of Turkey inevitably required the elimination of the
Armenian ‘enemies’, for example, might be a healthy challenge.
So again, does the European Union not have a card to play, a real
presence to use in order to influence Turkey in a good way?
It is up to Europe to intervene in order to encourage those marginal
democratic movements. However, it is also necessary that this dynamic
come from the inside. The promise of a full and whole integration,
of a day that’ll see the resolution of the problems evoked at the
start, would be necessary – although I fear it may be too late. As to
the question of a privileged partnership between the EU and Turkey,
I would say that is already in place. Besides, it is Europe’s job
to make known its own views on Turkey. I personally believe that
Europeans fear the disrespect of human rights more than anything else.