THE LESSONS OF A PREDOMINANTLY MIDDLE EASTERN TURKEY
By Rami G. Khouri
Daily Star – Lebanon
May 2 2006
Full disclosure from the start: I am a great admirer of Turkey. Of
course I am glad that four centuries of Ottoman control over the
Arab world ended after World War I, yet I wish that Turks and Arabs
had more regular encounters so that the modern Turkish experience
could rub off on us and inspire us. I admire not only the history,
power and astounding rhythms of Istanbul, which twice ruled pivotal
regions of the world in the Byzantine and Ottoman eras. I also admire
its ongoing trajectory to modernity.
Turkey can teach several important lessons to two groups of people who
seem to be increasingly at odds with one another: nationally distressed
and wobbly Arabs, and a United States-led West that views Arab Islamist
parties that have triumphed in elections with perplexity and hostility.
I am a Turkey fan because the Arab world’s large, predominantly Middle
Eastern and Muslim northern neighbor is seriously addressing all those
core issues of nationhood, citizenship and modernity that the countries
of the Middle East generally avoid. These include important challenges
like making a full democratic transformation, deepening Turkey’s
secular tradition, coming to terms with a pluralistic identity,
integrating Islamists into the political system, fostering civilian
control over the military, grappling with the status of minorities and
historical traumas, strengthening human rights guarantees, promoting a
truly productive economy, maintaining a vibrant civil society, steadily
reforming a country to become eligible for European Union membership
while not losing sight of Turkey’s links with the Middle East and
Central Asia, and forging a new, more dignified, less servile, and
mutually beneficial relationship with the U.S. Any country that does
all this simultaneously, as Turkey is doing, is impressive in my book.
For those Turks who dispute my description of their country as
predominantly Middle Eastern, and who prefer to be called European,
I offer as compelling anecdotal evidence just one experience: I was in
a taxi in the center of Istanbul at rush hour when the driver suddenly
reversed at high speed, drove backwards against one-way traffic, inside
a major roundabout, in order to avoid going through a few congested
streets. Not only did the driver act like a Middle Eastern maniac, but
all the other drivers seemed to understand and tolerate this behavior
and facilitated his lawless and reckless reverse journey against the
oncoming traffic. Pretty spectacular, and distinctly Middle Eastern.
Modern Turkey has always had a core of democratic and secular values
since the birth of the modern state after World War I. Yet it has also
mirrored the rest of the Middle East in keeping all major national
and strategic decisions in the hands of the armed forces.
This made every issue a security issue, and allowed military leaders
to step in and run the state at their whim. This is changing rapidly.
Turkey’s experience since 1997-1998 has been impressive because it
revolves around three related dynamics that also challenge the Arabs.
The first is development of a deeper, more pluralistic and inclusive,
democracy that can accommodate the participation, and even the victory,
of Islamist parties. Several Islamist surges in the last decade were
voided by the armed forces and ruling elite, but more mature attitudes
prevailed finally when the current government was formed in late 2002
by the mildly Islamist Justice and Development Party headed by Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This government has enthusiastically
championed reforms to bring Turkey into Europe, and has taken bold
steps to resolve the Cyprus problem.
The second change has come in the fields of human rights and minority
rights. This has especially affected the status of Turkey’s large
Kurdish minority and how to deal with the allegations of genocide
against the Armenians in 1915-1916, which the world beyond Turkey
widely acknowledges occurred. Turkish government and society are
haunted by the prospect of Turkey shrinking again if Kurds seek
independence or deep autonomy in their southeastern provinces. But the
civilian and military leaders recognize there is no military solution,
even as they open up formerly shut doors to public discussion of the
Armenian issue.
The third, most important, issue has been the gradual expansion of
civilian control over the military, in a political system “whose
Constitution was written by and for the military in 1982,” according
to university professor and columnist Soli Ozel. The Constitution was
recently amended in a more liberal and democratic manner, he told me,
largely as a result of the terms of the EU accession process, which
the public strongly supports. This, it seems, in contrast to what
happened in Iraq, is one way to do external intervention in order to
bring about Middle Eastern democracy.
The civilianization and democratization of Turkish politics are
ongoing, gradual processes. They are crucial to allowing Turkey to deal
with its substantial challenges in the vast arenas that are identity,
history, economy, geography and nationalism – and instructive for
the rest of us who watch this process close-up, even from the back
seat of a lawless taxi driven by a loveable but modern maniac.
Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary for THE DAILY STAR.