WHY WESTERNIZED, SECULAR AND DEMOCRATIC TURKS VOTED FOR ERDOGAN
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
American Chronicle, CA
icle.asp?articleID=32902
July 23 2007
As I stated in an earlier article (All about Turkish Elections),
a great number of Westernized, Secular and Democratic Turks voted
for AKP, the Turkish extremist Islamist’s party that seems set for
a strange sort of victory. The paradoxical phenomenon is due to many
reasons. We feature herewith a non-exhaustive list.
The Real Power is not in Erdogan’s hands.
This is certainly comforting; when you know that an Islamist premier is
bound to compromise with the military, the diplomatic, the academic,
and above all the financial establishment, you do not feel afraid to
vote for him, as a reaction to several mistakes attributed to other
parties. It is expected for Erdogan, an otherwise dull, pale and shy
person, to compromise with the military on a wide range of issues
from the presidential elections to the pending Iraq invasion.
Vote for Erdogan as reaction against scandals, inconsistencies and
inadequacies
You may belong to a Center Right or a Center Left party, but you
disagree with traditional and ineffective policies pursued without
criticism and without exit for too long. In a case like that of
today’s Turkey, you have the possibility to send an alarming warning.
Turks seem to be very confident about the durability of the Secular
Republic and Ataturk’s legacy, and Erdogan – despite his agenda –
seems to be too weak to threaten the State, despite the ominous
French and European backing. This could contribute to a risky vote,
but Turks are risky.
Vote for Erdogan because of economic achievements
This concerns mainly secular and conservative Turks, who could not be
sure that by voting the small secular conservative party (Demokrat
Parti) they would secure a continuity for the recent significant
achievements in terms of foreign investment, liberalization, and
increased income from Tourism. Of course, without the solid foundations
set in the 80s and early 90s by Turgut Ozal, nothing would have been
achieved, but the overall picture of the Turkish economy led many
secular, non practicing Muslims to Erdogan’s AKP.
Vote for Erdogan as result of indecision in front of a multi-divided
opposition
You vote more easily for someone you view as neutral, when you
have greater difficulty to opt among the more marked candidates and
parties. In fact, Turks had to choose between
– a Nationalist party of the Right (MHP – Milliyetci Hareket Partisi)
which is the equivalent of the Christian Social Union (CSU) in Germany
– and not of Le Pen in France,
– a pale coalition (named Demokrat Parti) of two traditional Right
parties (Anavatan – founded by Turgut Ozal, and Dogru Yol – founded
by Suleyman Demirel) that in the times of their glory (early 90s)
had already no reason of separate existence except that they were
controlled by different statesmen of the Conservative Right, plus
were later plagued by the infinite scandals of former prime ministers
Mesut Yilmaz and Tansu Ciller, and
– a Center – Left party (People’s Republican Party – Cumhuriyet
Halk Partisi/CHP) that can be portrayed as ‘conservative’ as
Helmut Schmidt’s German Social Democrats in the late 70s, and as
‘nationalistic’ as Andreas Papandreou’s PASOK (especially for the
period 1974 – 1996).
>From the aforementioned it becomes immediately understood that many
secular Turks who ascribe themselves to Center – Right political
ideals would find MHP too extreme, DP too small, CHP too left, and
Erdogan’s AKP adequately liberal to vote. Secular Conservatives may
represent more than one third of Erdogan’s voters, which translates
to 15 – 20% of the total outcome. If we add to all this, the great
number of independent candidates who belonged to the aforementioned
three political formations but for one reason or another preferred
to present themselves independently, we get a clear picture.
As a matter of fact, and with the results almost entirely announced,
one comes to understand that the total of the voters of the three
parties is equivalent to that of the Islamist premier’s party, which
shows that in Turkey the really Islamic voters do not exceed 25%
of the total population.
A Vote to Social Democrats (CHP) would open the undesired way to Europe
Turks have lost their trust in Europe; EU’s credibility is at its
lowest, and there is nothing to be done to repair it. Turkish Secular
Democratic citizens put themselves in front of the following questions:
-Why shall we still search to adhere to Europe where anti-Turkish
directives seem to prevail?
-If Europe turns out to become a religious, non tolerant realm where
Turkey is not accepted despite it is a secular Muslim country, what
have we got to do in a place like that?
Turkey already lived a moment when Europe deviated to Nazism (mainly
1940 – 1944); this did not mean that Turkey should turn Nazi too. If
Europe becomes a religious, anti-democratic realm, Turkey certainly
will not follow.
There are plenty of indications for Secular and Democratic Turks that
Europe is about to turn to a distinctively Christian, religious Club,
plunged into fratricide conflicts about its identity, Christian or
none, as discussions about the European Constitution reveal.
Consequently, a vote for Erdogan would mean precisely what the
untrustworthy Europeans publicized: turning down the European
perspective of Turkey. Despite recent frictions in the Socialist
International, the CHP has been viewed by Turks as the politically
closer to Europe Turkish political institution. And Erdogan remains
unchallenged as the only Turkish politician who will certainly be
rejected by Europe. Why vote for someone else then?
Vote for Erdogan as rejection of Western obscure plans for a Clash
of Civilization
This may sound strange, but it started already at the times of
Necmettin Erbakan in the mid 90s. Having in mind that the principles of
Ataturk and the foundations of the Secular Republic are irremovable,
many secular and democratic Turks express their indignation by
voting what would depict Turkey as the black sheep for the mendacious
Europeans. This is a purely negative, anti-European – but pro-Western –
vote, and observers and diplomats will have to count with this in the
years ahead. Turkey is truly exacerbated by Western European hypocrisy,
duplicity and mendacity as attested in so many cases from Kosovo to
Azerbaijan, and from the myth of the Turkish responsibility for the WW
I Armenian massacres to the reality of French maneuvers in Kurdistan.
What one should expect now from an explosive Turkey is a compromise
between Erdogan and the military as regards internal issues, and
the final decision of General Buyukanit about Turkey’s confident
position in Northern Iraq. It would be wise for Europe and America to
accept this as return to normality after so many decades of colonial
abnormality in Mesopotamia.
What Turkey’s opposition parties may draw as lesson will be an issue to
discuss in another article; one thing is sure: new leaders with proper
qualifications and great visions are needed. The clash between secular
democratic and civilized Turks and the minority of the fanaticized
Islamists has not ended; it has just started. Only a deep reassessment
and a great vision will send Erdogan and his extremists back to 20%
of the voters.