So this post isn't so much about what I did today but about what I thought about and we discussed. Our course work here in Turkey has focused on trying to identify what makes up the Turkish state - who are the Turks? Obviously, to understand modern Turkey one must be knowledgeable about its history. And that's what we've been doing - reading history including books like Turkey: The Quest for Identity, by Feroz Ahmad, and Stephen Kinzer's Crescent and Star.
This morning we met at the Medrese and discussed the issue of the Turkish state. Our discussions spilled over into a conversation we had with Professor Haldun Gulalp, of Yildiz University in Istanbul. Basically, we discussed modern Turkey - why did this country which has so much promise had such a turbulent past?
Of course, no one in the West really hears about Turkey, and so it's not such a big surprise that people don't know about the different military coups the country has had, and how important the military is in this country.
But first, a brief history of modern Turkey:
Turkey was founded in 1923 out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by a charismatic, intelligent and strong man named Mustafa Kemal. He later took up the name Ataturk - father of Turks.
The Man, the Legend.Ataturk was a brilliant man in many respects, and I intend to explore his identity and the cult-like following he has in this country in a later project. The most important thing to know about him is that he was able to defeat the European powers that were going to carve up his country into colonies, then led the country on a series of modernizing crusades that removed Islam from being the state's official religion, banned the fez (a symbol of how backwards the Ottoman Empire was), and established the nation's path towards the West and away from the East.
In 1926, Ataturk gave a speech that lasted 6 days (yes, really - 6 days). The words from that speech formed the basis for Turkey's constitution and the way the country would be ruled henceforth. Ataturk formed the basis for a Turkish democracy (though democratic rule was never really practiced while he was alive).
Ataturk died in 1938 (of cirrhosis of the liver, no less). In 1950, Ataturk's political party lost for the first time by a landslide. But things were not to go well for Turkey's political system. Since Ataturk died, Turkey's military has considered itself the vanguard of Ataturk and everything he stood for - collectively known as Kemalism.
Many academics and historians have concluded that Kemalism and the nationalism that Ataturk engendered took the place of Islam in modern Turkey. Nevertheless, Islam continues to be a presence throughout the country, as the muezzin (call to prayer) 5 times a day reminds everyone.
But when the country (or its political parties) moves too far away from the secularism promoted by Ataturk and closer towards Islam, the military vanguard freaks. And by freak, I mean throws a military coup. Three times - 1960, 1972, 1980 - the military has flexed its muscle against political parties that weren't following the "Ataturk way" - although it has always been with huge popular support. In 1960, a court went as far as to execute the prime minister and three of his high political allies.
As recently as 1997, the military expressed its disgust at the ruling coalition - and the party was banned by a constitutional court. In another case, one military general posted online that he thought some political leaders had to pick up the slack - and the leaders changed the way they governed. The military has so much power that its "security council" essentially gives orders to the government's top politicians.
And therein lies the problem. How can a country like Turkey, a country with European Union aspirations, ever hope to become a true democracy when the leaders who are popularly elected willingly take orders from the military? And how can a democracy - and its people - ever truly mature if its government can effectively be taken out of power whenever a select group of generals decide that they are not following Ataturk's will closely enough?
Clayton countered Edward and my argument about the military being a sort of Big Brother that never allows Turkey to become a true democracy by saying that without a strong military, Turkey would not have to the place that it is today. That is probably true - Turkey's military tradition brought the nation together following WWI, and the excellent military schools and academies provide the best education in Turkey. But in a country where internet is widely available, newspapers report the happenings of politics around the world (including in-depth coverage of the Obama-Clinton-McCain election), and a press increasingly critical of government institutions and parties, the Turkish people are smart and ready enough for a government that does not have to be baby-sat by the army.
Not only is Turkey as a country ready for a real democracy, but it it needs it in order to accomplish the most basic of Kemalist goals. Ironically, by being a continuing presence in Turkish politics, the Turkish military hinders Ataturk's goal of Turkey becoming a western country, the goal most symbolically represented by joining the EU. Turkey already faces tough obstacles in joining - the most obvious of them is that it is a Muslim country bidding for entrance into a Christian group of countries - but even if the EU would get over itself and look past its differences with Turkey, it would still never allow in a country that allows the military to take such a powerful presence. The military must step down if Turkey wants to fulfill the promise it has as a nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment