Turkey: Groping for Destiny?
By Saad S. Khan

EVER since becoming a republic in 1923, Turkey has had a troubled experience with democracy. The founding democrat, Mustafa Kemal, became a traditional military autocrat soon afterwards.

The 20th century was strange in the sense that in the most parts of the world, the transition from monarchy to republic has seldom meant transfer of power from a King to the public at large. Rather, instead of a single all-powerful King, the power slipped into the grips of the armed forces, or more narrowly, to a coterie of Generals. The word Republic may not explain the transition as clearly as a phrase such as Remilitaire (sic!) in most of the developing world.

Turkey’s bid for membership of the European Union seemed poised to change the destiny of the country. The EU’s tough human rights standards were to help Turkey move towards the values of freedom. The legal and institutional framework had to be modified accordingly. This was somehow not to be! It now appears that some vested hands are working to encourage the Turkey’s military to undermine the inherent civilian authority of the elected government, paving way for blocking Turkey’s entry into the Euro Club.

The latest incidents in Ankara, where the army has challenged the civil authority, coupled with the rising voices in Europe, that Turkey is a Muslim nation and should not be permitted to join the “Christian” Union, betray subtle links. Is it part of a bigger game plan to thwart Turkey’s move to democracy and in turn get an excuse to block its EU candidature? With instances and statements galore, this column would focus on only two recent telling developments; the altercation between the Turkish Prime Minister and his military chief and the pontification of the top Vatican theologian about Turkey’s future.

At the end of the annual three day conference last week of the country’s powerful Higher Military Council (YAS), which inter alia, decides on military promotions and retirements, the army chief General Hilmi Ozkok announced the sacking of 12 senior army officers on “disciplinary grounds”. The term, one must recall, is typically used by the Turkish military to indicate Islamist tendency in the Officer concerned.

Wearing of a head scarf by the wife would be construed as a pro-Islamist tendency in the officer. A rough equivalent would be to sack a German army officer on the charge that his mother regularly attends the church mass on Sundays. The issue of fundamental human liberty of choice, in terms of religion, culture and dress-up not withstanding, the issue at stake was that during the three day moot, the army did not take care of even informing the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the country’s Defence Minister Vecdi Gonul of the announcement, let alone, seeking permission for it.

The Prime Minister felt insulted and mildly protested (he knows his limits!!) to the General that he was having the orders written down but should have at least sought his (the Prime Minister’s) opinion. “We already know your opinion, Mr. Prime Minister” was the curt retort that he received. Yes, the Prime Minister’s opinion, or more specifically the opinion of the Turk nation that elected him with a thumping two thirds majority in 2002, ending the decades of coalition governments, is clearly known to the world and to the Generals also. The nation now wants democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law.

The Cyprus issue has to be settled (the Turk Cypriots had already endorsed the UN Plan), the cultural rights of the Kurds have to be respected (Kurdish language education and broadcasts have started) and the army’s self styled role in guarding secularism and democracy (sic!) has to be done away with, in favor of the Turkish electorate in general (necessary constitutional amendments already underway). Turkey’s march to human progress hits directly at a mafia called the armed forces. And hence, the army is creating one issue after another to provoke the legitimate government.

After all, the army has usurped power thrice, enforcing martial laws and self-serving constitutions, throwing elected Presidents into prisons (Celal Beyar, for instance) and sending populist Prime Minister to the gallows (Adnan Menderes in 1963) after the infamous Yassida trials. Prime Ministers in Turkey are more concerned about their neck than the petty issues of democracy and freedom of choice. Once, and if at all, the issues justifying the rationale of such a big army are settled and Turkey becomes part of the European Union, the army would be sized, its clout would stand reduced and it would be obliged to remain confined to the duties of defense and of loyalty to the civil government. All of this is an anathema for the Generals.

The strange bedfellows for the Ankara’s military garrisons on the other side of Dardanelles straits, are the Christian Catholic Churches. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the doctrinal head of the Vatican church, in his interview with the France’s Le Figaro magazine, has advised Turkey to seek membership with the Arab Muslim bloc in the South, rather than try to join the European community that has “Christian roots”. Albeit in a different context, Cardinal Joseph, who heads Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, added in the same interview that “aggressive secularism” would provoke more “Islamic Fundamentalism” rather than counter it.

One may agree or disagree with the Cardinal’s specific advice to Turkey, but his latter assertion is prophetic. The only way to disillusion the Turks with the values of freedom is the type of secularism that the army wants to impose on the nation. Cultures evolve through History and cannot be changed from above. Germans were ruled by the Christian Democratic Union of Chancellor Helmet Kohl till 1990’s; their life style, their culture and their language also has a Christian imprint on it. But nobody questions the Germans’ right to own their religious heritage while being part of a secular European Union. Why should the Turks not elect the Justice and Development Party, with Islamist roots to power? Why they be expected to shed away their identity in culture, language and customs, in search of an elusive destiny?

As the story goes, a crow dips in a pond to become as white as a Swan. He loses his feathers but cannot shed away the color. Neither do the Swans own him, nor do the crows accept him back. The choice for Turkey is to enter the European Union with what she is. The Turks are proud of their rich History and culture, and they have the reason and the right on their side, for being so. The army at Ankara or the pontiffs at Vatican must not dictate their choices and their destiny. Free and fair multi-party democracy is the sole legitimate means available to any modern civilized nation to express its collective judgment.

December 2004 is fast arriving when the decision to start accession negotiations with Turkey is due to be made. Prime Minister Erdogan has set 2012 as the target date of his country’s full membership of the European Union. The moment of reckoning is fast arriving and the choices, hard ones though, have to be made sooner than later. Should Turkey be ditched by the EU, the impetus for reforms would be lost, the vested interests would rule the roost, and there would be despondency and disillusionment among the nation.

And there would be Turkey, again a “sick man” of Europe, not of Asia. One cannot change geography! The senseless persecution of Muslim religion by self serving hands in the name of democracy, would make Turkey a haven for fundamentalists and extremists, and Turkey would be a pain in the neck for Europe.

And let one add that Recep Tayyip Erdogan is the right man to lead Turkey into Europe. He is an epitome of a modern European leader; a self-made man who had financed his education by selling lemonade and sesame bread on the streets of Istanbul, a man who owns and prides in his religious convictions and a man who is a democrat to the core. During his tenure, Turkey has won the post of the Secretary General of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and can truly act as a bridge between Islam and the West.

Consider the other scenario, the brighter one, that the West pushes for reforms in Turkey, gives it massive aid for readjustment and realignment and finally inducts her into the European Union, say, by 2016, along with the three other Muslim nations, namely, Albania, Bosnia and (North) Cyprus, the aptly-called ABC of the Islamic presence in Europe. Europe would be one single cultural entity with 20% Muslims. It would be a victory of values over religious bigotry. A strong Europe with no major fault lines would be a factor of stability for the whole world. It is in the interest of humanity that state institutions like the armed forces in Turkey are not allowed to become a supra-state at the cost of the authority of the elected civil governments.●

The writer is an Oxford published author and a widely published commentator on governance and politics of the Muslim world.
E-Mail: saadskhan@yahoo.co.uk 

© 2004 Saad S. Khan