Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in a statement that “the way that the protests are reflected in the media depict Turkey as a second class democracy.” He said this in response to US Vice-president Joe Biden’s comment that, “Turkey’s future belongs to the people of Turkey and no one else. But the United States does not pretend to be indifferent to the outcome.” Biden’s comment came following a State Department travel alert to the country. Earlier U.S. State Department Spokesman Jen Psaki said, “We believe that Turkey’s long-term stability, security and prosperity can be guaranteed with the protection of the fundamental freedoms. That’s what the [protesters] seemed to be doing. These freedoms are very important in a healthy democracy.” These developments lead us to raise question about democracy. What does democracy entail? How does a “first class democracy” function? What are the characteristics of a first class democracy? Why is Turkey’s democracy being categorized second class democracy?
How did the US administration deal with the Occupy Wall Street Movement? How was this movement different from Turkish Taksim Square demonstrations? Both began with insignificant number of people but were joined by thousands, in fact millions all over the world in the case of Occupy Wall Street Movement, with the passage of time. In both instances the security forces have used tear gas and pepper spray to control protesters. In both instances hundreds were arrested. The Turkish Prime Minister has labeled some protesters as being extremist and terrorist while U.S. government documents suggest that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had been monitoring Occupy Wall Street activists through joint terrorism task force. However, Turkish police are reported to have used disproportionate force, and this is a matter of concern, but there are striking differences in the nature and characteristics of the two movements.
Originally Occupy Wall Street activists wanted to hold their demonstration in front of 1 Chase Plaza but as soon as the police came to know about it a fence was put around the area in order to prevent the demonstrators. Demonstrators then decided to move to nearby Zuccotti Park where they continued to express their views until they were totally evicted by the police. The demonstrators claimed to represent 99% and wanted to curb influence of corporations in politics. It should be noted that the movement emerged in the context of 2008 global financial crisis and 2011 Arab uprisings. However, although within months this movement attracted huge attention and millions expressed their support holding demonstrations various parts of the world, it seems to have lost momentum. The White House hardly took any notice of their demands.
As opposed to Occupy Wall Street Movement the Turkish Taksim Square demonstration began with less than hundred environmentalists expressing concern about a development project. They were then infiltrated by opponents of government: among them were former vested interests known as Kemalists, leftists, ultra-nationalists, homosexuals and other marginalized minorities. They provoked the police who responded heavy-handedly creating chaos in the area. The government responded by both carrot and stick. While the Prime Minister offered to abide by court ruling on the issue and offered to hold a referendum; he also accused some protesters as being extremist and terrorist. The President and the Deputy Prime Minister came out with more sympathy for the demonstrators. Following days of violent confrontation the police seem to have succeeded in restoring order. Do the two settings say anything about democracy? I leave readers to judge, but as one who voted for Biden (he was Obama’s choice, not mine) I feel embarrassed.
In this context one may ask what happened to Obama’s pre-election commitments. I don’t want to list broken promises but my question is: Is it democratic to ignore electoral promises? Many observers blame various other centers of power in American politics for this failure of President Obama. This division of power has been viewed positively by scholars. According to Francis Fukuyama, “The American system was built around a firm conviction that concentrated political power constituted an imminent danger to the lives and liberty of citizens. For this reason, the U.S. Constitution was designed with a broad range of checks and balances by which different parts of the government could prevent other parts from exercising tyrannical control.” (The Origins of Political Order. 2012). Division of power? Yes, of course! Fukuyama has failed to comprehend how with the passage of time certain non-democratic elements have learned how to flout all centers of power and pose danger on lives and liberty of citizens. This element is called lobby: American democracy today is no more “for the people, by the people, of the people;” it is almost “for the lobby, by the lobby of the lobby.”
America and Turkey are not the only example of democracy in the world: many observers romanticize India as “the largest democracy in the world today.” How democratic is India? Hypothetically I have always felt that the caste system and democratic values don’t go together. Let us see how it has worked in practice: In 1951, when India declared holding of an election for a legislative assembly in Kashmir, based on a UN resolution the world body reminded that “the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.” Yet the Indian authorities went ahead to hold what they called a democratic election. It was a total sham: With blessings from Delhi, Sheikh Abdullah’s party won 73 seats out of a total of 75. All seats were won uncontested because the Election Commission refused to accept opposition candidates. According to opposition sources, all subsequent elections in Kashmir were heavily rigged since then. In this contest India’s incorporation of Sikkim in 1974/75 and current attempts to “democratically” absorb Bangladesh are also relevant. Whenever I see slums in large Indian cities, naked poverty in rural areas, and the victim of loan sharks committing suicide, I tell myself these Indians must be convinced of their “sins” in their “previous life.”
Role of the Media
Prime Minister Erdugan of Turkey has accused the international media of lying and exaggerating protests marches in his country. The international media on its part has accused the Turkish media of ignoring the early days of protest marches in Taksim Square. While Erdugan has held the foreign media of conspiring to destabilize his government, the international media continues to accuse the Turkish government of intimidating the national media in support of the government.
An examination of the media needs some reflections on demands of the protesters and government’s response to those demands and how they have been covered by various formal and informal news outlets. While demands of Occupy Wall Street Movement are relatively clearer; they are not as clear for Taksim Square occupants where many different groups have converged. Interestingly although the government has been repeating about the planned project that there is no design on the table to build any shopping mall or expensive residential structure, there is very little coverage of that in the media. In fact the government is claiming that there will be more green spaces in the area than before and the main idea behind the reconstruction is to revive Turkey’s rich heritage and take most communication facilities underground. The original environmentalists seem to have agreed to discuss the plan with the government, but the movement seems to have gone out of their hands. The protesters do not seem to have any other demand than seeking resignation of the prime minister. However, the government on its part has declared a referendum on the issue and also pointed out the scheduled city election due early next year. Yet neither do the protesters nor do the media see any merit in these commitments. They seem to have forgotten that democracy demands another election to bring down a democratically elected government.
Interestingly the international media paid almost no attention to another protest uprising, which was brutally suppressed at the beginning of May in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The main difference between the two protest marches in Bangladesh and in Turkey was that the former, was staged by a group called Hefazat-i-Islam which demanded strict Islamic law in the country. According to activists, the authorities in Bangladesh killed thousands of their supporter using live bullets after midnight of May 5 by means of creating electricity blackout. The method in which the Turkish Taksim Square movement has been covered by the international media only suggests their Islamophobic approach in covering news. In this there is no difference between Socialistworker.org and The New York Times, CNN, BBC: all mainstream news channels ignored Hefazat-i-Islam’s peaceful protests and their consequences.
What is more interesting is that there is new information about the so-called miracle girl saved after 17 days from the garment factory disaster that happened a few days before the Hefazat-i-Islam crackdown. According to a new investigation, the story was a staged one. In order to divert public attention from the brutal action against Hefazat-i-Islam activists the government staged this story. Sadly the international media has paid no attention to this new investigation.
The international media has turned a “Standing Man” into an icon of protest in Taksim Square. I remember standing in front of Topkapi Palace some years ago for more than five minutes to observe the standing guard whether he was a real man or a statue. It was only his eye blinking that convinced me that he was a real human being.
Taksim Protest and Turkey’s Image
Although the protesters have not succeeded in destabilizing the government in Turkey, they have succeeded in tarnishing Turkey’s international image. This seems to have been the objective of the international media and, I think, they have succeeded. During the past decade Turkey had emerged as a financial giant by ending IMF/ World Bank loans, by tripling its GDP and bringing millions out of poverty. Many international observers were citing Turkey’s success story as a model for development in the 21st century. This seemed to have become an eyesore many islamophobic elements all over the world.
Prime Minster Erdugan has reacted sharply to this attempt of tarnishing of Turkish image and has accused Turkey’s foreign enemies of conspiring against his country through Taksim uprising. Is there anything new in this allegation? Is economic progress and good governance enough to neutralize conspiracies? Were there no conspiracies against the prophet of Islam?
Many observers have raised questions about PM Erdugan’s approach in handling this crisis. Apparently he feels this as a challenge to his person. As opposed to his approach one may note those of Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc and President Abdullah Gul. I am not a member of the ruling AKP of Turkey, nor am I a Turkish citizen of the country. I don’t think I am in any position to comment on which approach is better to handle this situation. However I strongly believe that institutions should be based on principles not individuals. The Qur’an has taught us not to depend even on the personality of the prophet when it comes to one’s mission and responsibility: It says: Muhammad is no more than an apostle: many were the apostle that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah, but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude (3:144).
Dr. Abdullah al-Ahsan is the Vice President of JUST.