Egged on by the European Union and the Turkish army, Turkey's highest court has blocked a candidate from the country's ruling party from becoming president. Abdullah Gul, a close ally of Turkey's prime minister is currently foreign minister. The problem, from the point of view of the EU and the army, is that Gul is also a devout Muslim. his wife even wears a headscarf!
Turkey's leading secular party is worried that Gul will breach the secularism that has defined Turkey since the Ataturk revolution in 1923. Ataturk wanted Turkey to become a non-Muslim country overnight, and so he abolished the alphabet, cancelled Muslim holidays, closed the Muslim schools, outlawed Muslim clothing in public buildings, and replaced Islamic law with Swiss and German law.
It's not easy to convert a Muslim country into a secular European country overnight, and over the decades Turkey's Muslim identity has been seeping back. The curent ruling party, although sometimes described as Islamist, is more accurately described as traditional Muslim. It has presided over a period of unprecedented economic growth, has integrated Turkey into the world economy, has courted European Union membership, has made Istanbul into what Newsweek terms "one of the world's coolest cities," and has softened Ataturk's militant secularism without introducing either sharia or discrimination against non-Muslims.
Yet secular forces, inside and outside of Turkey, are worried. And they are not unwilling to use strong-arm tactics to subvert Turkish democracy. First the EU warns Turkey: remain secular or forget about applying to our club. Then the Turkish military issues its darkly-worded threats: remain secular or we might start shooting! And now the Turkish court, which is widely recognized as a pawn of the military, has blocked Gul's candidacy. The court's grounds are specious: not enough lawmakers were supposedly present to vote. But on other occassions even fewer lawmakers have made these decisions. And the reason there weren't enough lawmakers is that the leading secular party in Turkey deliberately boycotted the vote.
So now Turkey is headed for another election, and I suspect the ruling party will increase its majority. Yes, Ataturk may be spinning in his grave. Yes, the EU might continue to withhold membership. Yes, there are Americans across the political spectrum who seem to prefer a secular Turkey. But ultimately the future of the country is in the hands of the Turkish people, and it seems that as Muslims they would rather live in a Muslim Turkey. I, for one, see nothing wrong with that.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 3)
1. djHello. I found Britney Spears Nude video :) Enjoy..
..
http://sexy-tube-world.net/view.php?Britney_Spears_Nude
..
..
rdnvrdlsgi at 10:22AM on Jan 24th 2009
2. If you seriously think this is the case in Turkey you should definitely learn some history. What you have written has no difference than what a highschool kid would write. How can you get into stanford if you can be so judgemental while you know so little about a subject you are writing about.
osman yamuk at 4:35PM on May 2nd 2007
3. I agree with the first commentator. very much like a highschool opinion-piece.!
corrections: 1.what makes Istanbul cool is not a party that wants to close alcohol-serving bars and restaurants ( Erdogan's AK party tried it)
2. judges are not pawns of army
3. army would not shoot people in a possible intervention (i totally aggree that intervention is wrong and anti-democratic. it should not happen)
4. muslim people of Turkey can live as Muslims as individuals. but if a prime-minister (erdogan) calls a city of 3 million people , Izmir, "infidel" because they did not vote for his party, there is something that is extreemly wrong.
5. as the recent demonstrations showed to the outside world, secularism is in the roots of the turkish society. it is not a "secularist elite and generals" who keep Turkey secular. it is the modenrnization movement of Turkey that started 200 years ago in the Ottoman Empire.
koray durak at 7:21PM on May 2nd 2007
4. Wow.
Sadaqat at 7:22PM on May 2nd 2007
5. I'm not sure about the above comments. I don't think Dinesh D'Souza is at high-school level. My peers were reading Weber, Marx, Lenin at that level. He's in *primary* school trying to learn how to think properly, and the article shows that he just can't.
Next time, do not write about something that you apparently know nothing about. Your sheer presence is a shame for Stanford University.
I'm Turkish and I'm fascinated by your ignorance.
towsonu2003 at 8:15PM on May 2nd 2007
6. Your comment and attitude "without introducing discrimination against non-Muslims" is nonsense.
The Turkish government allows discrimination against all non-Mulsims, denying them property rights, ownership rights, rights to jobs.
Minorities in Turkey, including Catholics, do not have full, legal recognition, noted the commission in the report. Read "U.S. commission notes religious freedom violations in Turkey" and stop writing lies.
jon becker at 9:23PM on May 2nd 2007
7. Dinesh, I have to inform you that I have a Christian friend that was invited to speak in Turkey and he was advised by his Turkish hosts that he could be killed if he sought to prosyletize while he was there.
He did anyway, but he did so with the full knowledge and understanding of the risk that he was taking. He had a successful encounter with a bank president which always helps keep a missianary alive.
dalosophy at 10:00PM on May 2nd 2007
8. LONG LIVE ATATURK!
LONG LIVE SECULAR TURKISH REPUBLIC!
Lara at 10:28PM on May 2nd 2007
9. Dinesh (The author) has no CLUE about Turkey. He could have written the article above on life in Mars, and he could be more right on. It's a shame on AOL to keep this person on staff - or in their writer list.
Jake at 12:49AM on May 3rd 2007
10. The Kamalist worshippers, the bunch who are intolerant of democratic ideas should and would never be let rule. On one hand, they hypocritically believe 'democracy,' and on the other hand, readily support coups by the army, should the ruling government ever try to modernize Turkey.
The current ruling party were elected by the Turki public, let the public judge when it comes to next election; the few elitist so-called secular Kamalists should not dictate the state's politicies. They are cultists, believing a man's -- Mustafa Kamal's -- outdated ideas as though it was a revealed religion, that those obsolete ideas should be stuck forever.
Somali at 2:07AM on May 3rd 2007
11. None of you seem to get it: There is nothing undemocratic about not wanting your president to be chosen by a group that represents not even thirty percent of the people. AKP came to power as a result of some crazy 10% electoral threshold. Their 34% of the vote translates into almost 70% of the seats in parliament. They have done nothing to reach out to the 68 or so percent that are not represented. Now, electing a president should be something very inclusive. If less than 2/3 of the parliament are present to vote on a president, then the process is doubly undemocratic and non-inclusive: a party representing just over 30% of the electoriat voting on a president, when all other parties protest by boycotting. Therefore it would translate into 34% of electoriate chosing a president that is supposed to be the ultimate unpartisaned pillar of the state. There was NOTHING undemocratic about the Court's decision. It must be remembered that the current President has vetoed over 20,000 appointmnets made by the AKP to senior bureaucratic and diplomatic posts because he felt they were unqualified for their possitions or that they compromised secular interests. It would be VERY VERY VERY undemocratic if a party representing 34% of population came to power and was able to change the country in fundamental ways that were against the wishes of the vast majority. To me, that would be undemocratic. AKP has done everything by the book - true. But the rule of law pertaining to the 10% threshold in elections was written under millitary rule in order to reduce the parlyzing multi-parties that existed previously. This is what needs to be changed. There is nothing undemocratic about not wanting your president to be chosen by a group that represents not even thirty percent of the people.
David at 8:23AM on May 6th 2007
12. None of you seem to get it: There is nothing undemocratic about not wanting your president to be chosen by a group that represents not
even thirty percent of the people. AKP came to power as a result of some crazy 10% electoral threshold. Their 34% of the vote translates
into almost 70% of the seats in parliament. They have done nothing to reach out to the 68 or so percent that are not represented. Now,
electing a president should be something very inclusive. If less than 2/3 of the parliament are present to vote on a president, thenthe process is doubly undemocratic and non-inclusive: a party
representing just over 30% of the electorate voting on a president, when all other parties protest by boycotting. Therefore it would
translate into 34% of electorate choosing a president that is supposed to be the ultimate unpartisan pillar of the state. There
was NOTHING undemocratic about the Court's decision. It must be remembered that the current President has vetoed over 20,000
appointments made by the AKP to senior bureaucratic and diplomatic posts because he felt they were unqualified for their positions or
that they compromised secular interests. It would be VERY VERY VERY undemocratic if a party representing 34% of population came to power
and was able to change the country in fundamental ways that were against the wishes of the vast majority. To me, that would be
undemocratic. AKP has done everything by the book - true. But the rule of law pertaining to the 10% threshold in elections was written
under military rule in order to reduce the paralyzing multi-parties that existed previously. This is what needs to be changed. There is
nothing undemocratic about not wanting your president to be chosen by a group that represents not even thirty-five percent of the people.
David at 3:49AM on May 3rd 2007
13. All I know about Turkey is that (a) its secular; (b) Istanbul is considered cool (but not because of a harsh Muslim atmosphere); and (c) secularism has worked for decades and there have been fairly recent mass demonstrations by the people in favor of continued secularism.
Dinesh, like everyone, has a right to his opinion, and I don't know enough about Turkey to disagree with it in detail. I do find it disturbing that he would favor increased religious influence in a secular government, especially Muslim influence considering ALL THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE WITH MUSLIMS.
I also think, in a roundabout way, that we are back (again!) to the theme of Dinesh's new book. There, he wishes for our secular President to unconstitutionally promote conservative CHRISTIAN values to the Muslim world to show we are more similar to them than they think. First, it is unconstitutional for the head of an executive branch to promote a particular religion in our foreign policy, and for some reason I don't think promoting Christianity to the Muslims right now would go over very well. I think we might hear a lot of comments from the Muslim world including the word "crusade." Second, I don't want to live in a country that is similar to a Muslim nation.
What's most disturbing to me about this is what does this say about the author's opinion on our own secular government? Is this a roundabout way to promote theocracy in America? I ADAMENTLY OPPOSE THAT (did I spell that right?). What's even more disturbing is that this is already happening and needs to be stopped and reversed.
I forget the name of Pat Buchanan's law school, but have read it is barely accredited and at the bottom of the bowl in terms of quality of legal education. And, of course, it is controlled by the same man who publicly suggested assasinating Hugo Chavez (I guess in a "Christian way") and that Hurricane Katrina occured because New Orleans celebrated one gay event a year.
Anyway, despite its low quality and the questionable sanity of its leader, this law school has become the primary recruitment center for top government officials, and those of its graduates who manage to pass the bar and are hired are shot to top level positions in the DOJ and in non-political bureaucratic federal government jobs. These are people who you couldn't trust to successfully represent you in a fight with your neighbor over the property line, because they don't have enough experience; but they are running key areas of our government with an evangelical twist. Monica Goodling of Fifth Amendment fame is a prime example: an inexperienced evangelical lawyer from Pat's law school who formerly had a LOT of power in the DOJ.
We already have a President that is so inept in all areas of his job that if he didn't have family connections and fortune to back him up from birth (granddad was a Nazi financier), would have been in a mediocre or below job position his whole life, if nto unemployed and on welfare due to substance abuse. Instead, he's president of the nation. For Bush to promote adding a slew of inexperienced graduates from Pat's "D grade" law school to the top levels of government simply because they are Evangelicals should raise a concern with all Americans.
Phil at 5:59AM on May 3rd 2007
14. It's true that this guy is an ignoramus out of proportions. But as Phil mentioned, the Hoover Institute is not a famous place to raise intellectuals. Just check the article on their website. It's not an academic place, it is a fascist propaganda site. Just deserves the name Hoover.
Anyway, I commented on a similar thread. Forgive me for copying and pasting:
1. Those who chant their Anti-Islamic agenda apparently have very little knowledge about Islam. There are several factions, sects, communities within Islam. Within Turkey, there are more than 100 communities, and more than a dozen of sects.
In the beginning of the Republic, the founders knew it is impossible to eliminate Islam as a form of culture. Instead, they chose manipulating it in a way to combine it with the foundations of the secular Republic. They abolished the Caliphate and the sects, closed all their headquarters and meeting places, they established the Directorate of Religious Affairs, a state body. Before the Republic, the Hanefi -a branch of Sunni- tradition was very influential in Anatolia. They introduced the Maturidi tradition, a much worldly one, which was easier to combine with basic secular processes and procedures. Indeed, the Sunni majority of the country is much more worldly, in this context, secular than any other Islamic population.
I highly recommend works of Serif Mardin, especially "Religion, Society, and Modernity in Turkey", and "Religion and Social Change in Modern Turkey". You will see there how the Kemalist state provided a consensus with the basics of religious culture.
2. However, it doesn't mean that there is no tension between the Kemalists/seculars and the Islamic periphery. The tension had three historical turning points.
a) One is 1950, when Turkey was turned into multi-party democracy. The new party, DP, won the elections against the Kemalists, and they introduced -economically, not politically- liberal measures, thanks to the infamous Marshall Plan. But this lasted for ten years. The military organised a coup against them, hanged the three leaders and introduced a new constitution in 1961, which was indeed a more liberal one than the 1924 Constitution. They knew that democratic demands would be much more than the early republican times, because of the rapid rate of urbanisation and gained experiences during multi-party democracy times.
b) The second turning point was 1980, which was the third military coup of Turkey, indeed, a fascist intervention. Hundreds of thousands of people were arrested, tens of thousands tortured, hundreds murdered, hanged, or disappeared. Interestingly, eight months before the coup, Turkey introduced very liberal measures, almost the second of Marshallisation. Lefty thinkers argue that the coup was arranged because such extremely liberal measures couldn?t be taken with the existing power of the unions and opposition in the country.
Anyway, with the coup, the military leaders started a program backed by the US. They promoted Islam on popular meetings, they opened more religious schools. This social engineering program, called ?the green line?, initiated by the US to create an Islamic defence line against the Soviet Bloc, worked pretty well for Turkey. After years of ruthless government and a lasting authoritarian regime, Turkish population turned more conservative than ever.
c) The third turning point was 1990?s, when the gradual liberalisation of the economics helped form a new sort of bourgeoisie in the peripheral Turkey. The new style of capital reminded the early times of capitalism: family-oriented business entities, small-middle scale entrepreneurs coming together and forming alliances, etc. An exemplary work is ESI's "Islamic Calvinists: Change and Conservatism in Central Anatolia" Check www.esiweb.org
It's true that the emerging bourgeoisie has an Islamic flavour. But they have showed with several examples that they are businessmen and this is what it is about. I was interviewing a famous businessman in Kayseri, who exports his products to a couple of European, several African and Middle Eastern countries. I asked him whether he uses interest -which is a sin in Islamic Law-, and he said, without any hesitation, yes. He saw I was surprised and told me that this is the name of the game, and they have to comply with it if they want to stay in it.
As a summary, I would argue that the agenda of the new Islamic capitalists is not Islam at first. They want to take the country from the old nomenclatura, who are the Army, the bureaucrats, and the old capitalists. Basically, it's a class struggle between two factions of bourgeoisie, in a rather Marxist sense. To get back to my argument two, this is the nub of the tension.
ertank at 6:54AM on May 3rd 2007
15.
I agree, Atatark went way too far with his secularism to the point of not only keeping religion out of government but also banning religious practices in private. This new pro-Islamic government is enacting only moderate changes which restore those freedoms from what I've seen, certainly no reason to throw away a democratically elected government.
Peter at 7:46AM on May 3rd 2007