EKOPOLITIK’S CELENK SAYS ENEMIES CAN BECOME FRIENDS IF BROUGHT TOGETHER
Today’s Zaman
March 15 2010
Turkey
The principal cause of tension among institutions and polarization of
society is a lack of political leadership to ensure harmony and build
a consensus in Turkey to make the country more democratic, according
to Tarık Celenk, general coordinator of Ekopolitik, a Web-based
publication produced by the ADAM Social Sciences Research Center
"Turkish institutions are not in agreement on how to adapt to changes,
both in the world and in the society, so we experience the resulting
tension," he told Today’s Zaman for Monday Talk.
"When it comes to specific problems, such as the Kurdish problem, I
don’t think anybody who is conscientious would oppose granting human
rights to the Kurdish people living in this country, but the problem
is that there is a power struggle instead of leadership to integrate
all ideas to take Turkey forward and create a better understanding
of democracy based on a societal consensus," he added.
Ekopolitik, which aims to develop new policy options for policy-makers
and improve public understanding of international and domestic
politics, stresses the importance of plurality, consensus and
confidence building as well as harmony in society. Celenk told us about
their vision and programs in which they bring together people with
different backgrounds, often people who consider each other "enemies."
On your Web site, you have a little survey, and you ask, "Where is the
country headed at this time when there is tension rather than harmony
among institutions?" In response, readers are supposed to select from
answers ranging from "Turkey will emerge stronger at the end of this
process" to "The dynamics of internal conflict are getting stronger."
Why did you feel the need to pose such a question, and what is your
answer to it?
[Francis] Fukuyama has some categorizations regarding states.
According to these, there are first-class states, there are the ones
that try to be states and there are also mini-states. The first-class
states, such as the United States and Russia, are open to change,
and they also quickly adapt to change. Turkey, as a country that was
established following the Ottoman Empire, has to be able to follow
changes and quickly adapt to those changes. And this can be achieved
only if there is harmony among the institutions of the state. All
institutions should be able to recognize changes in society and be
willing to adapt to those changes. Turkey has been going through that
process, but the struggle is not about how to become a first-class
state — it is a power struggle, about who will have more power. Maybe
Turkey needs to review its definition of state altogether in that
process.
Could you please elaborate on this idea?
When the Republic of Turkey was found, it was based on the ideals
of some segments of society, mainly the supporters of the Committee
of Union and Progress. The ideals of the liberals and religious
segments were largely ignored. Now the neglected segments of society
are re-emerging, and they are saying, "We’re here, too." At the same
time, we have many changes in the world — regarding globalization,
the environment, democratization, problems of nation-states, new
definitions of citizenship, etc. Obviously, Turkish institutions are
not in agreement on how to adapt to changes, both in the world and in
the society, so we experience the resulting tension in society. That’s
why the question seemed important, and that’s why it found its way
to our Web site. When it comes to specific problems, such as the
Kurdish problem, I don’t think anybody who is conscientious would
oppose granting human rights to the Kurdish people living in this
country, but the problem is that there is a power struggle instead of
leadership to integrate all ideas to take Turkey forward and create
a better understanding of democracy based on a societal consensus.
We will come back to this idea, but now what is your answer regarding
where Turkey is headed with those existing tensions?
It seems like the country has been going with the flow of international
dynamics rather than closely monitoring its own dynamics and
strategizing accordingly. Fortunately, the international dynamics
dictate a regional leadership role for Turkey as opposed to the
pre-World War I international dynamics, which dictated the fall of
the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, all institutions in Turkey should see
the coming developments and adjust and adapt, but they don’t do so.
Therefore, they are being forced to make adjustments in time.
What is the danger here?
The danger is that the whole process could be steered by foreign actors
when there is not enough agreement in society. There is also the fact
that the way foreign actors see the situation is that Turkey is too
important to be left alone. Nobody knows what might happen if it is
left alone. There might be undesired instability. Therefore, there is
international steering. However, Turkish actors in institutions could
act more intelligently and face up to their shortcomings and turn
the process into an advantage. This is the way to be a first-class
state. Turkey can even turn some issues that are perceived to be
dangerous into an advantage. For example, instead of seeing the Kurdish
issue and the Gulen movement as threats, Turkey can use those issues
as leverage to be a regional power in line with Foreign Minister
Ahmet Davutoglu’s vision for Turkey’s role in the region.
‘People who fought against each other in the mountains are able
to talk’ Some of those ideas bring us to the establishment of your
programs, in which you emphasize psychological factors in solving
problems in society and also make every effort to include all parts
of society in discussing solutions to problems.
Correct. Prior to the announcement of the democratic initiative, we
were having meetings in which we were bringing together people who
have had difficulty understanding part of the Turkish society with
people who define themselves as nationalists. We have been totally
standing away from political interests or views while doing this. Our
only concern has been to make efforts to develop a common language
among the various people of this society. Considering psychological
factors, we had a lot of help from Vamık Volkan, who is a noted
political psychologist.
Who were the people you brought together, in terms of their background?
We have had a series of more than 10 meetings with people who define
themselves differently from each other. There were liberal Kurds,
Kurdish nationalists, Kurdish leftists, liberal Turks, Turkish
nationalists and Turkish leftists. We stress a pluralist approach.
Among them were also former members of the [Kurdistan Workers’ Party]
PKK and former members of the special forces of the Turkish military
who had fought against the PKK. We had similar meetings in Turkish
Cyprus, where there is confusion among the public about where they
belong. Some of them feel more Turkish, some of them Greek, some want
to be belong to the United Kingdom, some to the European Union. Again,
our goal has been to develop a common language.
What do you find striking about those meetings?
People have been able to get rid of their prejudices and develop
friendships. People who fought against each other in the mountains
were able to talk. What is important is getting together and talking.
Were they able to understand each other?
When there is such an effort to come together, a group psychology
also develops in time, and they even try to find solutions to problems.
This is a tremendous help in Turkey’s democratization process because
these people are so real, not people involved in politics. If the
government or state wants to progress in the democratization process,
this effort should not be ignored but given importance because civil
society opens the way for going forward in that regard.
What are some of the government’s shortcomings in handling the
democratization initiative?
The government has had good intentions, but it did not have a strategy,
and it still does not seem to have one. Secondly, the democratization
initiative should not be presented as the government’s initiative. The
government should have had behind the scenes talks with the opposition,
reached a consensus and then presented it to society as a whole. The
government should have ensured at the beginning that the opposition
would own the initiative. There have not been enough efforts in
that regard.
The prime minister seems to have revamped efforts now to garner the
support of the opposition for constitutional amendments that are part
of the democratization process. Is it too late now to do that?
The prime minister is headed in the right direction, but the opposition
will not be convinced. They will hold onto concerns regarding the
government’s previous approach and will not find the renewed efforts
sincere enough.
What do you think about the government’s efforts to involve artists
from the film, theater and music scene?
Those efforts have not been taken very well in the Southeast. What
needs to be done is to stop for a moment and go back to the beginning
of the process to secure consensus in society and then strategize
and definitely ensure the involvement of civil society. There is
not an agreed upon definition of the problem yet. The Turkish state
has always waited to be understood by the public, but this is not
what it’s supposed to do. The state should understand its people,
not expect to be understood.
BOX: ‘If children are treated like this, they will be lost’
A group of researchers from Ekopolitik recently went to Hakkari to
observe the situation and exchange views with members of civil society
and public institutions such as the municipality and the governor’s
office. They also came together with so-called "stone-throwing
children," who make headlines when they participate in illegal
demonstrations and are tried as adults. A new bill envisages the
retrial of minors convicted under the Counterterrorism Law at special
juvenile courts in order to secure more lenient sentences for them.
Gulsunay Uysal and AyÅ~_egul Elif Aslantepe, who met with children
between the ages of 4 and 14 in Hakkari, talked about their experience.
Where did you go in Hakkari?
Uysal: We went to the Baglar neighborhood, which is a place where
violent acts might take place involving children. We wanted to take
pictures of children, but they reacted to that and even attempted to
throw stones at us. However, after our group leader talked with them
about our purpose, they treated us warmly. We understood that they
were afraid because they thought we were going to give their pictures
to the police. That was a trust issue. There were about 20 children
who did not have anything to play with, not even a soccer ball.
What did you talk about?
Aslantepe: They told us that they don’t have a place to play. We asked
them if they would play there if there were facilities, and they
said they would be excited to have facilities and would definitely
use them. They also said they wanted to read some Kurdish books.
What else happened there?
Uysal: As we were trying to approach the children, there was a police
car passing by, and all of a sudden, there were a few shots fired.
Right after the police car went away, we went near the children and
saw the bullets on the ground. We were so shocked to witness such
an incident. It’s totally unacceptable to fire at children no matter
what. If children are treated that way, they will be lost.
Aslantepe: There was absolutely no need to fire where children are
on the street.
‘What you do more important than who you are’
‘Having access to the mechanisms of the state is very important,
and we have difficulty with that in Turkey. What you do should be
important rather than who you are. Otherwise, we will not be able
to make progress in what needs to be done in terms of solutions to
problems. For example, we work with a civil society group called the
ATÄ° association, which is not close to any of the political parties.
We will send questionnaires to opinion leaders on the issue and will
evaluate the results to design an action plan for a solution. There
need to be projects for those young people for them to have a life,
to have a future. There need to be youth activity centers, children’s
centers and women’s centers. As civil society develops projects in
that regard, the state should be supportive of them’