Turkey Beyond Islamism and Authoritarianism
Ziya Meral
September 04, 2013
As
protests spread and grew first in Istanbul, then in other parts of the country,
we all struggled to conceptualize what we were witnessing. Many in Turkey opted
for clear and neat narratives, which often left out other aspects of the
protests and burdened events with legendary meanings ascribed onto them.
A
significant portion of commentary on Turkey in international media was by and
large repetition of old positions with new 'proofs' found in protests
themselves and Turkish government's handling of them. Many saw the fulfillment
of long prophesied Turkish lapses on spectrums of Islamism-secularism or
democracy-authoritarianism.
The
resulting cacophony demonstrated that we were witnessing a new era in Turkey,
and our intellectual tool kits were simply insufficient in making sense of it.
Intense language of debates in Turkey and angry outbursts of emotions only
helped to cloud our vision.
We had faced
a similar situation in 2002, when the lenses we used to analyze Turkey hindered
us from realizing that emergence of Justice and Development Party (AKP) in
Turkey was far from victory of Islamism as we know it, but its end. The AKP was
representative of a new paradigm for Islam inspired politics that blended
historical romanticism, cultural identity with open markets and global
integration. It had emerged from the rubble of collapsed Islamist movements and
managed to move beyond their legacy.
Gradually,
mainstream analysis caught up with what Turkey was going through. Many came to
see a dynamic reconfiguration of power relations, socio-economic classes, place
of religion in political and public space and balancing of military's
involvement in politics. Finally, a 'model' Muslim-majority country was
emerging with its unique way of attempting to adjust to the twenty-first
century.
However,
the AKP's performance took an interesting turn after the 2011 elections. The party's
reform and the drive toward European Union accession began to be questioned.
Worrying political steps and emotive public statements on issues that came to
symbolize Turkish culture wars, such as alcohol and abortion, began unsettling
the trajectory we foresaw for Turkey after 2002.
With
increasing concern over freedom of expression and media and bold statements by
government officials, many feared that Turkey was losing all that it has
achieved since 2002. Yet, the tectonic build up that reached a breaking point
during the summer of 2013 was no return to old Turkey. That is why reading
through most commentary felt like going through the blurry test lenses one
tries on at an optician before finding the right one.
The story
of where we are now had began by the start of early 2000s, even before the AKP
was on the scene. The Turkish public was discontent and in search of a new
politics and social vision. The AKP’s genius, and hence the source of its wide
appeal, was not religion or ideology but the instinctive realization of a
vision that hit all the right notes. The party sought EU membership yet
remained faithful to conservative culture, focused on economic growth yet
enhanced social services.
The AKP
quickly garnered unexpected levels of votes. The old regime and other political
actors—now squarely in the opposition—attempted to stop Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan’s rise. But their old tricks backfired. With each
passing year, the clear-cut power and social structures of 'old' Turkey
crumbled, as did the narratives that anchored such institutions.
Nothing
was left untouched, from Ataturk to the events of 1915. Tenuous issues like
Kurds, headscarves, and the nature of Turkishness became intensely debated
publicly, openly challenged, and officially altered.
The old
elite and the new government clashed, shifting Turkey's rigid top to bottom
political and cultural hierarchy to a polarized battle of equals. Now, those
segments of Turkish society that were previously 'looked down' upon—average
folk who live outside of Izmir, Istanbul and Ankara—were claiming equal
ownership of every previously protected arena: culture, consumption, economy,
employment, academy and media.
Within
that, two cultural waves swept the country. On one hand, a positive outlook was
expressed through new soap operas, restaurants, boutique hotels, house
decorations, and clothing; romanticism over a long lost Ottoman heritage was
blended with contemporary aspirations and tastes. On the other hand, there was
a deep panic, anxiety and fear, full of conspiracy theories, weekly doomsday
prophesies and a genuine mourning over an imagined fall of the once grand
Turkish Republic.
Turkey
was now truly showing signs of late-modernity: the modern nation-state was
reconfiguring itself with all the stressful alterations this causes to
individuals and society at large. For the first time since the creation of
Republic of Turkey, solid and fixed horizons and clear and neat boundaries—and
most importantly the powers that maintained it coercively—were melting away.
Increasing
consumption and prosperity demands were being generously met. Social services
were being successfully advanced to meet a demanding consumer public. However,
each attempt by the AKP to undo decades long issues caused by the strong
nation-state legacy, such as the grievances of Kurds, Alevis and women with
headscarves, caused wide stress and anxiety in parts of Turkey where these
issues were hardly seen as a ‘problem.’ Similarly, each AKP foreign policy
adventure, which took Turkey to places the country had never been before, was
met by excitement by some and grave worries by others.
The AKP
unsuccessfully attempted to offer a new uniting narrative, an anchorage for a
fast changing Turkey with appeals to heritage and traditional values. Yet, none
of the efforts to develop a unified Turkey 2.0 vision eased the building
tensions. For the AKP, however, the future looked bright with the record
breaking results of the 2011 elections, utter absence of opposition parties and
weakened pressure of the EU accession talks. But, it was a deceptive brave new
world.
The AKP
quickly found that even though it indeed enjoyed high vote rates and no
competitor, it could not simply enjoy the same level of power that the system
it fought against once had. Thanks to its own reforms, neither the public nor
the realities of where Turkey was could go along with it. Thus, what we saw in
the party’s 2012 and 2013 performance was not the ‘mastery phase’ that the
prime minister had launched.
On the
contrary, we saw increasingly weak attempts to exercise sovereignty. Prime
Minister Erdoğan’s public tone and stand often gave the aura of harsh
words of a strong man; in actual terms, they were anxious attempts to hold on
to a power which is no longer possible in Turkey. Within that feeble position,
politics of culture and public morality provided a sense of legitimate power
base.
Autonomous
state power has slowly disappeared, and power could only be provided by
unshaken commitment of a substantial constituency and complex web of relations
with the business world and interest groups. Now that Turkey was a country of
consumers and suffered from the well-known postmodern curse of fragmented and
absent ideologies, the emotive politics of culture was the only rallying point
left both for the AKP and its mimesis die-hard ‘secular’ opposition. Thus alcohol or building of a mosque became
hyped symbolic battlegrounds over the soul of Turkey.
This
difficulty of managing the new Turkey with ease, as well as socio-psychological
turbulence of living in a country of constant change, became all the more apparent
as the historic process of talks and agreements with outlawed Kurdish militant
group PKK began. Beyond the smoke screen of ‘laicete versus Islam’ tension, the
PKK peace process was an actual challenge and caused wide worries among Turks.
Many Turks saw the AKP's gestures towards PKK and plans to end a decades long
low-scale armed conflict as ‘selling out.’
Therefore,
even though what we saw in Turkey during June and July 2013 looked to be truly
chaotic outbursts of so many different grievances, aspirations, worries and
reactions, on some level it made perfect sense. The social and political
hierarchies that held these relations intact and dealt with them in far away
places from the eyes of ‘modern’ Turks were no longer there. And each AKP
attempt to utilize old-state tricks with heavy-handed social control only made
things worse. Deep polarization and often unnamed or unfocused anger now
dominated the public space.
It might
be counterintuitive, but these developments are ultimately promising signs that,
for the first time, Turkey is facing the challenge of democracy after decades
of keeping all of the unprocessed issues under the carpet. Turkish state's
strong micro-management had only postponed this inevitable stressful reckoning
with all of the unresolved tensions.
The
events of June and July also revealed the Achilles heel of Turkish success
story: a weak democratic culture. All sides unleashed intense accusations and
derogatory slurs in the utter absence of thoughtful public engagement. Any view
beyond ‘either/or’ or any person who is not with ‘us/them’ became intolerable
even for individuals who have often followed a liberal course. Thus, wholesale
support or condemnation of AKP and Erdogan were the only options in Turkey this
summer. Erdoğan was either the savior of Turkey or the new Hitler.
What has
been demystified this summer is not simply Erdoğan or the AKP, but the state of
Turkey and the Turkish public at large. It became clear that the modern nation
state that had promised to be our ‘father’ and manage the state’s affairs on
our behalf has left us ill equipped to be democratic ‘adults.’ It seemed that
all of our glittering advancements or perceptions of our place in the global
arena were beyond our actual capacity as a society to cope with plurality.
It is no surprise that many domestic and foreign readings of Turkey seemed
only right to a certain extent, but not quite right. Turkey is confusing to
capture, because she is confused herself. The country is going through a
liminal phase, which heightens emotions and reactions. Even the most common
policy issues or unconnected incidents across the country quickly turn into a
Manichean battle between light and darkness.
How
Turkey will come out of this new uncharted territory is not clear. As the
country is gearing towards local and presidential elections in 2014, it is
highly likely that we will see more protests, angry outbursts and intense
public discussions. When they do happen, we'd do well by seeing them as signs
of a healthy but painful process Turkey is going through and take the
hyperbolic descriptions and analysis of events with a grain of salt.
Ziya Meral is a UK-based Turkish
researcher and author.