NY: *** You’ve been observing Turkey abroad in the academic year and now you’re in Turkey since April. Will you share your observations about Turkey and the Turkish society?
Z: In the last few years Turkey had been in an admirable position. It had been literally a bright star sparkling on the eastern horizon of the western world. It looked like an admirable country which was moving fast with an enviable economic development, with free elections, a respected parliament, and with a young and dynamic population making their mark in Turkish and top world universities. In addition, it was a country that received about 31 million astonished tourists a year. So, Turkey had everything going for it; it was in an enviable position. When these demonstrations started taking place against some of the actions of the prime minister, I thought Turkey had an absolutely unmatchable public relations opportunity of the most extraordinary kind.
NY: *** Why is that, would you explain?
Z: If Ankara had been able to show the world that Turkey was not only a bright country of economic development, but a country which also respected personal freedoms – freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of association, in short human rights – by managing the sit in at the Gezi Park in an appropriate manner, without massive police brutality, Turkey would have become overnight an absolutely admirable star on the eastern horizon. The Gezi incident and the heavy handed police response which followed is a tragic mistake, and a great missed opportunity for Turkey to show its gentler side. Instead, what has happened is that the world has been regaled with horrifying pictures of police in full riot gear attacking peaceful protestors; and all the positive images of Turkey have been ruined. The negativity, the obstinate and irascible responses of the PM may well undermine the tourist trade, as it may endanger the vital financial backing that was provided to Turkey internationally. All this could have been foreseen; it might have further dramatic undesirable consequences. So it is difficult to understand why so much has been risked for so little advantage. Who needs another eyesore building in lovely public park in Istanbul?
NY: *** How do you think the government could have managed the events; would you elaborate?
Z: As it has been managed in many democratic countries. Some demonstrations need obviously to be restrained for public order, but there are persuasive ways of managing a crisis. In the first few days, serious mistakes were made. The attacks against peaceful demonstrators were clearly unacceptable, and the scenes of those ferocious attacks left a very bad impression despite the shocking reticence of the Turkish media to report them. The President became aware of this, fortunately, and intervened, so did the deputy Prime Minister – they both apologized. That was the right direction. It should have been pursued further. Regrettably, the positive impressions left by those apologies were immediately reversed by the intemperate statements of the PM returning from Morocco. The requests of the demonstrators, apart from preserving the park were that those authorities who had been responsible for the deaths and the wounded should be prosecuted. The government eventually agreed to look into the matter. In any normally democratic country, those responsible for such a major mess would surely have resigned immediately. The attacks against the group of lawyers and the doctors were scandalous. The demonstrations were in fact beginning to fade out when the intimidating and hectoring tone of statements coming from Ankara again envenomed the situation; this then was followed by yet another major onslaught of the riot police to clear the park. Surely, all of this could have been avoided: the entire incident could have been defused by any junior minister with a subtler touch.
NY: *** Do you sense power fatigue on the side of the government and public?
Z: In the latest Gallup poll, the support in İstanbul for the AK Party had gone down to 30 percent from about 58 percent. That’s a serious drop. It is not unexpected for a party that has been in power for ten years. It does mean that a lot of people have been dissatisfied in one way or another. It also has much to do with attitudes to authority. The authoritarian style gives the impression that decisions made in Ankara are not to be challenged. So, prime minister makes a decision and the rest of the population has to accept it. This is not conducive to democracy in a country like Turkey that has now developed a large, literate and lively middle class. The democratic process requires that you consult with citizens in decisions concerning their welfare. Please note: the ends do not justify the means, as the communists would have it. It is the nature of the means used that determine the character, the quality of the ends achieved. We must remember the wise words of Gandhi, the much admired leading figure of peace of the 20th century. This was indeed his formulation: The ends do not justify the means; it is the nature of the means you use which then create the kind of end that you achieve. This is exactly the problem with the Gezi park incident. There should have been much more consultation, a more open process about decisions concerning the lives of people in Istanbul: the bridge, the new airport, all sorts of things are going on in İstanbul – a more consultative method would have avoided the impression of Sultanism.
NY: *** Do you think people who have been holding anti-government protests have been in search of a way to express themselves? Do you think they have been in streets because they have not found ways or channels to do that in opposition parties? Have their concerns not been addressed properly by political parties?
Z: There does appear to be a democratic deficiency in the public arena. The opposition is weak and divided within itself. The profile of the population has changed dramatically: from a land which was only 25% urban ten years ago we now have 70% of the population who have become urbanites. The prosperous middle class has been growing and demands greater representation. The question of liberty has always been a serious issue in Turkey under whatever regime. The tradition of the state has been heavy handed. It is certainly to the credit of the AK Party that it has been successful in putting the military establishment out of politics. They have been also very successful in increasing the economic development of the country. They have had great success in making public services available to the public – hospitals, schools, universities, airports, etc. These are undeniable and admirable achievements to their credit. But there has been a real deficit: the way for people to express themselves. The 10% limit on elections to parliament is anachronic: it creates large constituencies that are not represented. This is particularly true for Kurds and Alevi’s. Another thing is that AK party is perceived as a party that supports the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria. The problem with the Muslim Brotherhood is that they do not and cannot embrace the Turkish Alevis. So the Alevis do not find sufficient breathing space in the society. So do the Kurds. These are the major fault lines in Turkish society which will have to be addressed: The huge Kurdish and the Alevi populations with their demands of universal human rights – in short democracy.
NY: *** Would you elaborate on this idea?
Z: In the past, under the Ottoman Empire a diverse population was managed very effectively until the 19th century. When Turkey was created as a new nation, Turkey was literally reborn from the ashes of the great catastrophe of World War I. The new formation naturally included the legacy of the Ottoman Empire – it had its Kurds, Alevis, all kinds of ethnic groups and immigrants from the Balkans, from the Caucasus, and of course, non-Muslims. As you know, I have done a great deal of work on India. That great civilization is often in my mind. Like the Ottoman Empire of the past, India today manages a stunningly diverse population. There are more than a billion people speaking many different languages in India, following different religious traditions, and using amazingly different alphabets. Many states in the Indian Union have separate alphabets, and yet they manage an admirable, successful and highly democratic system. Turkey must do the same. The tolerance of much greater local autonomy for the entire country is the only way to a greater and more stable democratic future for Turkey.
NY: *** Isn’t Turkey now at a critical point because it is pre-election time and the election campaign seems to have been started by the Prime Minister because of the recent anti-government protests; he held two mass rallies over the last weekend. And during election campaigns politicians usually put the burning issues on hold; they try to keep the status quo. And there has been a “solution process” already started by the government in regards to the Kurdish issue. What shall we expect in coming days and months?
Z: Elections are not a time of peace and reconciliation. Elections also tend to bring out the major issues. My own sense is that much remains unpredictable. What will happen to the AK Party? Like any mass organization, it is indeed a coalition; includes factions. We might see AK Party’s internal factions rise to the surface. We might well see the same process among the opposition parties. It is perfectly obvious that the Kurdish issue can no longer be handled by the blunt methods of the security forces. Kurds need representation, and they will get political expression one way or another. Today, eastern Turkey is no longer a remote, isolated, forgotten mountain region as it used to be for centuries. Communication is instant today. Eastern Turkey is part of the modern world. This is indeed an opportunity for Turkey. If Turkey can manage an open democratic system, respect universal human rights, respect freedom of expression and association, problems will solve themselves.
NY: *** You mentioned that it was an achievement of the government to put the military back into the barracks. Now, in some parts of the society, there are concerns that the patriarchal guardianship of the military has been replaced by the guardianship of PM Erdoğan. Would you agree with this?
Z: I wouldn’t agree with that. First of all, Tayyib Erdogan is a legitimately elected leader of a very popular party in a legitimate parliament. This is a far cry from some generals and their arbitrary rule. The military came to the fore in Turkey only in times when the civil authority was weak and supine. The authoritarian reflex comes from our absolutist past. There is a “devlet” (state) tradition in Turkey deriving from the Ottoman Sultans that regards people as “subjects” of the state. This has to change and is changing: the “subjects” (reaya or kul) of the past Empire are becoming “citizens” with their individual human rights of a modern nation. Human rights are the most critical element in any democracy in the world. They must be respected. All parts of the Turkish society now demand it, not just the urbanized populations in Turkey. The same demands go for the Kurds. These are the growing pains for a full democracy in Turkey. When this is achieved, Turkey will sparkle again. I regard all this as an opportunity for Turkey.
NY: *** Prime Minister Erdoğan has been severely attacking the international media for not covering the recent events fairly. What is your opinion in this regard?
Z: Regrettably, the Turkish media in general has obviously failed the citizenry. It was sycophantic, fearful of power, ineffective in protecting the personal rights of journalists, and through the vulnerability of its wealthy owners, evidently in the pocket of the powers that be in Ankara. This was particularly true for TV stations. It was obvious immediately to the public when the Gezi incident got under way that the TV media was not going to be trusted. My impression is that print media is in a relatively better state. There are many newspapers, and brilliant journalists who are not afraid to speak truth to power. From Cumhuriyet and Taraf to Zaman and Yeni Safak one finds a lot of devastating criticism of the authorities. Some in Ankara are making intimidating noises about controlling the internet, prosecuting users of the social media. This would be yet another public relations disaster. I hope that good sense prevails. My own impression is that the respectable sources of the international media – Deutsche Welle, Radio France Internationale, the BBC, CNBC, CNN – have all been extremely reliable, objective. They have been covering the events very closely and responsibly. The criticism of the prime minister in this regard – he speaks of “foreign plots” to demean Turkey – can hardly be taken seriously. He does not seem to follow the media abroad and he does not seem to be well advised. In fact, observers who have been supporting Turkey very strongly in the past – Stefan Fule, Emma Bonino, Marti Ahtisaari come to mind – all had very appropriate statements. It would be useful for people around Davutoglu to pay some serious attention to this and stop pretending that it is all an elaborate conspiracy. The specious argument that the whole thing has been orchestrated by outside powers is simply risible.
NY: *** At the Gezi demonstrations and beyond, we have seen a large number of people elevating Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s posters, and on the other hand, we see a large number of people not doing it. Indeed, PM Erdoğan declared on Tuesday during his regular AK Party group meeting speech that the Gezi protestors were CHP supporters by 70 percent, a party known to have Kemalist tendencies. You’ve written extensively on secularism in Islam and “the cultural revolution in Turkey.” What do you observe in Turkey in regards to social cleavages, especially regarding the secular/Islamist dichotomy which has come to fore once again?
Z: The Ottoman Empire became painfully conscious of the need to catch up with all aspects of “modern science” in the Western world very early indeed. Nizam-I cedid (the New Order -1789) was a matter of survival. Modernization through “westernization” was the order of the day through the “long” 19th century – “long” because it was so painful. The adoption of western dress codes by Mahmut II , of Western music and painting, and furniture, in the Palace by Abdulmecid, were followed by the 1876 and 1908 Constitutions in the teeth of opposition by the conservatives and by the Sultan. So the struggle for “progress” became inevitably associated with “westernization”. Mustafa Kemal Pasha, a high ranking Ottoman general, had been a very close witness to events that led to total disaster at the end of World War I in 1918. It was again a matter of survival: of life and death, no less. When he got the chance in 1924 he decided to get a jump start on “progress” by catching up with the “modern world”, the West, when the rest of the world, both Asia and Africa, was still supine under colonial rule. His dramatic answer to the yearning for “modernization” since 1699 (Karlofca) was to “westernize” Turkish society by means of a thorough “cultural revolution”. It is undeniable that the shock treatment worked. If to-day Turkey has almost caught up with the best of the West, (see my reservations above), if it has a functioning democracy and parliament, a large middle class, a literate public, voting rights for women, a huge “scientific” and “industrial” establishment, many first rate Universities, it can be said that Ataturk’s vision of a strong, progressive and independent Turkey has been fulfilled. When eventually Turkey fulfills the requirements of the Helsinki accords, that is those highest standards for human rights, it will have achieved the yearning of her elites of long centuries. And that is achievement indeed.
Revolutions naturally receive reactions. “Cultural revolutions” in the direction of “science” and “modernization” invite inevitable reactions in the direction of their opposites, that is “religion” and “tradition”. We have been observing this since Selim III. The debate is still part of everyday conversation in Turkish families. The longing for a glorious past is played out in the scenes of “Muhtesem Yuz Yil” on popular TV. The Islam/secular dichotomy is no different than the Christian/secular or Jewish/secular dichotomies in the West. They all go back to the “Faith” and “Science” debate between Averroes (Ibn Rust), Ibn Arabi, Farabi and al Ghazali in those heady early days. But that is perhaps for another occasion.