BELGE: ONLY REMEDY TO CURRENT DEADLOCK IS DEMOCRACY
Today’s Zaman
June 23 2008
Turkey
Murat Belge, a left-wing intellectual, has said democracy has its own
remedies to solve the current deadlock of the political system, which
peaked following a series of decisions by the judiciary to overrule
parliamentary decisions. "Today the biggest threat to Turkey’s current
system is liberal democracy.
The system’s ruling elite have staged a war against democracy,"
he said in an interview for Monday Talk. "But if you don’t trust
the public, then the public’s votes do not mean anything, and you
deal with the issues by using judicial organs or the gendarmerie,"
he added. Belge, a professor of comparative literature at Ä°stanbul
Bilgi University and the chairman of the Helsinki Citizens Assembly,
said the powerful elite have been plotting ways to oust the ruling
Justice and Development Party (AK Party) instead of seeking democratic
ways to combat the policies they don’t like.
Belge elaborated on the current political crisis and the history of
the political deadlock for Monday Talk.
You left the Radikal daily, to which you had contributed since
its founding in 1996, and began writing for another daily, Taraf,
which began circulating this year. You said the reason for this move
was that you did not share the views of some Radikal columnists. You
wrote that if society succeeded in leading a "normal life," a variety
of viewpoints emerging from this situation would not create problems
for you. Can you elaborate on this idea?
Turkey is at a critical juncture. We are in one of the most critical
periods since the republic’s establishment. Turkey has to decide
whether it wants to be a democratic country or not. Even if it decides
to choose an undemocratic course, I don’t think it will stay on that
path in the long run, though that would cause unnecessary delays
in granting basic democratic rights and freedoms to the people in
addition to causing much pain. If a newspaper’s writers completely
defend opposing views at such a time, it causes confusion in the
minds of its readers as well.
What types of ideas presented in Radikal or other papers cause
confusion and increase polarization in society?
Take, for example, a columnist being critical of the military’s
warning to the government on one page while another writer completely
supports the military’s role in politics. This is misleading for
readers. Radikal belongs to a media group. Of the group’s papers,
it is the one I have the least objections to. Hurriyet, the leading
newspaper of the same company, has nothing in it that appeals to
me. A new newspaper then came on the scene, one whose views I share,
so I see nothing wrong in agreeing to write for them. Turkey’s present
circumstances require me to do so.
Please elaborate on these circumstances and Turkey’s situation.
When we look at the history of Turkey, starting in 1923 with
the founding of the republic, there were about 15,000 to 20,000
literate and politically active people. The society was mostly
agricultural and in a pre-capitalist period. Our elite had taken over
the task of modernizing Turkey. We were in a process of becoming a
nation-state. Having a state is easier than becoming a nation. If we
were to employ an opposing dichotomy metaphor in which the state is
masculine and the nation feminine, the current situation is akin to
the wife wanting to move out of her predefined role and the husband
resisting this and resorting to violence. In some states, this violence
is not prevalent, while in Turkey, it is a common occurrence. With
such a system in place and without society having become democratized,
we began implementing multi-party politics in the 1940s
What happened to the elite in the early stages of the multi-party
period?
They had a close circle of friends. Everyone knew each other from
the first class sections of Ä°stanbul’s ferries and the Ankara Opera
House. However, they began seeing people from second and third class
sections of ferries in the first class because these people — rather
than the known elite — had begun to acquire money and could pay for
the service. This the elite found disturbing. People that were looked
down upon started to take a seat next to the elite. For example, a new
passenger on the ferry could be "Hacı Aga from Adana" [a derogatory
term for a newly rich villager who flaunts his wealth in the city]
or some rich person who was previously in the mafia. When it comes to
our democracy, we had a client-based system and it was based on the
idea that "only if you vote for me will I bring water to your village."
Do you think the elite of today are same as those of yesterday?
They are still of the same mentality. The mission of the elite is to
bring up and educate the society. The elite have never felt that the
society has grown up. It’s the situation of having a 35-year-old son
whose hand you still want to hold while crossing the street. If this
is the case, the 35-year-old man must be retarded. The father needs to
give up being such a father and the society needs to grow up. Indeed,
our multi-faceted society has grown up: Just look at the Anatolian
Tigers, [A new group of entrepreneurs rising in prominence from
conservative Anatolian cities which have shown impressive economic
growth over the past few years]. The society wants to make up its
mind on such matters as whether or not it wants to join the European
Union. The society wants to solve the Kurdish issue, too. There
are people who have invested in the society and they want to have
a say in the future of this country. But the elite are unwilling to
grant this right to society and want to protect their turf. In the
meantime we have more polarization, but if there is no dialogue,
extreme elements can gain ground.
You have written that since no consensus exists, society is unable
to solve its problems; nationalism is growing along with the desire
to silence the "other." Where do we go?
I don’t think we will get anywhere by crushing or silencing one
another. No one can go anywhere desirable by punishing the other
that is different. If we hang a huge Turkish flag on the Selimiye
military barracks, yes, it sends out a certain nationalistic message
to some groups. If we wave Islamist symbols at some other groups, yes,
it gives a certain message to them. In nation-states we can expect
a certain tension between ethnicity and religion. It happened in
Bismarck’s Germany, too. Today’s big Christian Democratic Union (CDU)
of Germany has risen from the ashes of the movement that Bismarck
tried to crush. Bismarck, indeed, had given up its crushing project
after realizing that it would not succeed. In Turkey, we have not yet
made peace between Kocatepe [the site of a large mosque in Ankara]
and Anıttepe [the site of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s mausoleum]; we
have not yet provided an environment in which these two would not see
each other as adversaries. This is significant political ineptitude,
to say the least. This means our society is one that cannot grow
normally and that we should expect pathological developments.
Do you consider the latest decision of the Constitutional Court which
overturned constitutional amendments passed by Parliament to relax
a ban on wearing a headscarf at universities to be a pathological
development?
I would say that the case filed by the Supreme Court of Appeals chief
prosecutor [Abdurrahman Yalcınkaya] seeking to close the ruling
party is a pathological development. The closure case against the
[pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party] DTP is also pathological. I
would say that about the decisions of the judiciary in general. There
is another example: I read a verdict of a judge who handed down a
sentence on some writing in Agos. That judge quoted some writers
who claim that the Armenian massacre never happened. There are also
writers who claim that the massacre did happen. How can a judge quote
only from writers who say it did not happen? We have numerous other
such examples. What kind of objectivity can we expect from this kind
of a judiciary?
You have written that Turkey remains within the boundaries of the
authoritarian regime of the Sept. 12, 1980 military coup. That coup
produced its own constitution in 1982. However, the ruling AK Party
wants to change this constitution. Do you think this is the reason
behind the closure case against it?
We cannot mention only one factor as a reason behind the closure
case. There are a number of factors, and this is one of them. To put
it simply, the main thing is that the tail has been trying to wag the
dog. As you may recall, the prime minister [Recep Tayyip Erdogan] said
the same thing since he is partly of the same mentality [referring
to labor unions’ demand to celebrate Labor Day in Taksim Square,
Erdogan said, "If the feet try to rule the head, this will bring
about doomsday," sparking an uproar]. If you look at the indictment
against the Confederation of Revolutionary Workers’ Unions (DÄ°SK)
during the Sept. 12 period, you can see that the main concern was
about workers who were becoming powerful and "trying to rule the head."
Are you saying the reason behind the closure case is not the AK Party’s
"anti-secular" activities, as indicated in the indictment?
Islam may feature prominently among some AK Party supporters. Take,
for example, communism; some communists wanted to bring about
communism through a revolution but realized that it was not possible
to do so in countries like Italy and France. They then decided to
have Euro-communism through elections. Instead of a revolution, they
decided to work in a gradual manner. So Islamists have also seen that
when they assure the public that they do not aim to bring Shariah
to the country, their votes increase. This gives them a message:
"You promised not to bring Shariah, so we trust you and give you our
votes." This is what democracy is about. But if you don’t trust the
public, then the public’s votes do not mean anything and you deal
with issues by using judicial organs or the gendarmerie.
What’s next?
We have been involved in a democratization project with the EU. It
hasn’t advanced as much as it should have because of military and
judicial interference. I liken this to a tug-of-war. Although the
number of people who are against the democratization project is
lower than those who want Turkey to move forward, the influence of
the former is greater, leading to equal power and a never-ending
game. The parties have also abandoned respecting the rules of this
game. So what happens next in such an environment? I don’t know. A
society should never find itself in such a situation.
You have written that the Sept. 12 period was the biggest catastrophe
a society could have. How would you compare today’s Turkey with
that period?
Today is a continuation of that period. We are in an even more
catastrophic situation today because we have been unable to move out
of that catastrophe, created in 1980.
What are the main threats being presented to the society today,
compared to the past? Has Islamism replaced the threat of communism?
We went through much pain during the Sept. 12 period, and those
in power said all their undemocratic measures were taken to combat
the spread of communism. We then saw how shortsighted this view was
because the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 — the Sept. 12 military
coup took place in 1980 — bringing with it the end to the threat
of communism. Later came the threat of separatism and the Kurdish
issue. We have also had the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. The
most significant threat to the current system is liberal democracy,
and the system’s ruling elite are at war with democracy, using the
threat of Islamism only as a cover-up.
What is the remedy?
The remedy is democracy itself. Democracy can produce its own
remedies. You need to include the highly feared "enemy" and talk to
him; do not exclude him. The powerful elite have been plotting how to
oust the AK Party. For example, if the AK Party prohibits drinking,
then you should fight against that policy, not shut the party down. You
can be critical of its policies and try to change these policies
within the democratic system. This is the way democracies work. This
is the rule of law. You do not need to roll tanks down the street as
in the Feb. 28 process [a "post-modern coup" staged in 1997 by the
military to overthrow a coalition government led by pro-Islamist
Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan], especially if you have a civil
society prepared to resist any move leading to religious oppression.
What do you suggest the government should do?
The government could gain more support from democratic forces by
developing a broader grasp of democratic needs and by addressing the
fears of some people — even if their fears might be unjustified —
who think the government’s intention is to bring Shariah rule to the
country. But I usually refrain from criticizing the government at
this time so as not to give ammunition to undemocratic forces. We may
criticize the government for "bad policy," but that doesn’t justify the
"legal" threats it now faces. We are at such a point in time that it
is crucial to defend basic democratic rights.
Murat Belge Murat Belge is a left-wing Turkish intellectual,
translator, literary critic, scholar, civil rights activist and
academic. He is the son of political journalist Burhan Asaf Belge and
the nephew of Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu. He received his Ph.D. from
Ä°stanbul University in 1969. After the military coups of 1971
and 1980, he had to leave academic life and went into publishing
left-wing classics through Ä°letiÅ~_im Press in Ä°stanbul. Belge has
translated the works of James Joyce, Charles Dickens, D. H. Lawrence,
William Faulkner and John Berger into Turkish. Since 1996 he has been
a professor of comparative literature at Ä°stanbul Bilgi University. He
also chairs the Helsinki Citizens Assembly.
Belge was a member of the organizing committee of a two-day academic
conference held on Sept. 24-25, 2005 at Bilgi University titled
"Ottoman Armenians during the Decline of the Empire: Issues of
Scientific Responsibility and Democracy." The conference openly
disputed the official Turkish account of the Armenian massacres.
The gathering was denounced by neo-nationalists as treacherous and
led to him facing a jail sentence.
–Boundary_(ID_mGCv+V4ro717H+aERvnvEQ)- –