Registered user login:

Turkey's army and the west's hypocrisy

Rageh Omaar

Published 14 May 2007

A spontaneous demonstration in favour of secularism in Turkey was hailed as a beacon of hope but the reality is much more complicated

It was, without doubt, an impressive demonstration of people power, in a country on the edge of Europe that seeks to become a part of it. Almost a million Turks marched in Istanbul to show support for their secular republic. In an age when many in liberal, secular democracies in the west fear what they perceive as the relentless rise of militant political Islam, the sight of a spontaneous and authentic demonstration in a Muslim country was hailed as a beacon of hope. If only things were so simple. It would make a great script for a Hollywood movie.

The reality is more complicated. The demonstration was not in response to the imminent election of an Islamist government sworn to enact conservative religious laws. It was in response to the last-minute nomination of a venerated politician, Abdullah Gü, to the largely ceremonial role of president. The protest forced him to step down. Gü, who had been the country's foreign minister and played a significant role in Turkey's negotiations over membership of the European Union, had always had his eyes set on being prime minister. But the incumbent prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, put Gü's name forward as a presidential candidate.

What was so wrong with that? Gü belongs to the Justice and Development Party (AKP), a Muslim democratic party, but it is a million miles from what we would normally understand as "Islamist": guided by clerics, aiming to enact and enforce religious laws. This is not what the AKP is about, and certainly not a reflection of Gü's career. Analysts in Turkey and the EU have praised the government of which he was a senior member for enacting the most liberal reforms Turkey has experienced, in both the economic and the social spheres. However, Turkey is a country with shifting identities; Muslim and European, part of the Middle East yet one of Israel's strongest military allies, Kurdish and Turkish, democratic yet beholden to the military. These contradictory voices cannot project fully in a monolithic system where there is one identity - secularism - and one arbiter of political power - the army.

Impressive as the demonstration in Istanbul was, it was the voice of the country's urban and middle-class elite.

Gü's party represents a dying political trend in Muslim countries worldwide. Like similar parties in Algeria, Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt, the AKP is capitalising on disaffection with political systems that have monopolised power, whether it is the army in Turkey and Pakistan, or family dynasties such as the Assads in Syria and the Mubaraks in Egypt. The emergence of these political parties that appeal to professional and democratic Muslims has been perceived as a threat to stability, and they have been prevented repeatedly from competing fairly in elections - through vote-rigging, military intervention, imprisonment and intimidation.

The annulment of the polls that brought the Islamic Salvation Front to power in Algeria in the mid-1990s by the intervention of the army is a warning of what happens when moderate, democratically elected Muslim parties are prevented from taking office. By the most conservative estimates, the ensuing decade-long civil war left at least 60,000 people dead.

There is a nauseating hypocrisy to the way liberals in the west have applauded the army's intervention in Turkey. This is the same army that the left has criticised for decades for its policies towards the Kurds; the same army it has condemned for its unwillingness to admit to the Armenian genocide or permit it to be discussed. The west may be reassured by the army's actions, but divisions within Turkey will deepen, and with this crackdown, another country joins the list of those where moderate Muslims have no voice.

Post this article to

9 comments from readers

Keinaan
15 May 2007

The AKP party is liberal party like many other Christian democrats around Europe. The problem is here I believe the word Muslim party, even though the west hailed the intervention of the army. The EU actually condemns the action that the army took. The called undemocratic.

D.Objective
15 May 2007

"Some see Gul's nomination as an attempt by AKP to entrench itself in every aspect of Turkish life and wait for the right moment to take over..."and that women will not give up their freedoms without a fight!", concluded the country-specific CNNTurkish. As a non-Turk I had to look up the term 'entrenchment' in the new Turkish Concise Dictionary. Perhaps the word 'Muslim' does have an effect but Der Spiegel had a rather down-to-earth version of events: Gul's wife wears a Muslim headscarf...under these circumstances Turkish military men interpret this as a threat to Turkish democracy and consequently a threat to women's rights...a headscarf-wearing female should not be allowed to enter presidential palace.

radius
15 May 2007

I must have missed, in this context, "the intervention of the army" and 'the west' hailing it. Many Turks oppose any compromise on secularism - it is not just the army. This is another Eurocentric simplification, seeing just the military and Islamists. The Left, for example, and the trade union movement, tried to demonstrate against both the army and the Islamists on MayDay. Who banned the demonstration? An Islamist politician. Who beat ten types out of them? The forces of the state.

Brown-good-news
16 May 2007

Seeing just the army and Islamists is not Eurocentrism-it is realpolitik. When the national army (with a lengthy record of "previous convictions" ) publishes a statement on its website saying "The Army will not tolerate an Islamist threat to Turkish secular democracy and will act if necessary" three days before the crucial vote, it is bound to have repercussions- and it did. Obviously it was not just the back-door diplomacy (Army and its overseas friends) and the somewhat free Turkish media (of which the CNN is a part) . Turkey has a population of 71,158,647. We've seen a very well-organised bunch of 100.000 middle-class urban Turks waving red flags. Some will dispute the credibility of such an outpour of free will, but even if we assume the impossible, the army should stay where it belongs: in the barracks.

Thanks to AKP Turkish GDP has doubled since 2001; "Islamists" should be given a chance to continue with reforms.

hannelorethierry
17 May 2007

HANNELORETHIERRY/USA

THE ARMY BELONGS ON THE STREETS BLOCKING ALL AND EVERY LEFTIST AND SO CALLED MODERATES.KILL THEM ALL god WILL FIND HIS OWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hannelorethierry
17 May 2007

ALSO WHAT ARE "TEN TYPES" ????????///

NS Admin
17 May 2007

From our letters page...

Rageh Omar can be remarkably myopic . The massive pro-secular demonstrations in Istanbul and in Izmir were not in support of the Turkish military. And May Day marchers, far from representing the "middle class elite", were mainly workers demonstrating to oppose both the military and the Islamists. Their remembrance of the 30th anniversary of the Taksim Square May Day massacre was banned by the Islamist governor of Istanbul, Mouamer Guiller - and the demonstration (which called for Erdogan's resignation) was viciously attacked by the state.

I am not aware of liberals applauding the Turkish military - it seems to be Erdogan and Gü that get the benign pat on the back in that quarter. The British non-Muslim left may be attracted to Islamism, but not so - through bitter experience - the left in Muslim countries. The long-term British courtship of the al-Saud dynasty is just the most obvious example of western establishments' penchant for religious conservativism in Muslim countries.

There is little doubt that the likes of Erdogan and Gü will work just as well with US imperialism as the generals - and continue their grand tradition of repressing the left and the trade union movement. Is it really so hard for British liberals to understand that millions of people who are Muslim can and do organise completely outside the parameters of political Islam?

Peter McKenna

D.Objective
17 May 2007

Let us say that liberals criticised the Turkish army thuggery in the same way as they criticised Israel's disproportionate slaughter of 3000 women and children in Lebanon- and that is as close as it gets to nodding in approval. This is one reason why Muslim Europeans cannot fully engage in party-politics and, in extreme cases, look elsewhere to channel their grievances.

photoline
25 October 2007

"admit to the Armenian Genocide"?

Okay - so Turkey offers up all her archives and proposes a joint study while Armenian archives are closed. If a joint study is conducted, if all non-Turk participants indicate there is Genocide - Turkey will have to accept it.

I do not understand why Turkey has to admit to anything when Armenia is the one that is not willing to cooperate. This is hypocrisy. Majority of historians who indicate this as Genocide come from the same western countries that were enemies to the Ottomans.

Armenias biggest fear is to conduct a joint study and find out Genocide was committed by both sides, many Turks were killed which instigated the Turk's actions. So the christian Armenians whom were killed were human being - but the Turks were goats?

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Can Gordon Brown recover from the 10p tax fiasco?

Designed by Wilson Fletcher
Redesign consultant: Sheila Sang, PowWow Interactive