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 2 of 3)
16. ertank, thank you for your highly informative post, which was especially helpful to someone like me who knows so little about Turkish history. I just wanted to add one small disclaimer, my post did not mention anything about Dinesh's intellectual capabilities or the Hoover Institute (which I've always just assumed was ultra right wing, but will look at the web site). Who am I to question Dinesh's intellectual capabilities - the guy has multiple NYT best sellers, I don't. Being a left wing liberal generally, I probably would disagree with almost all their content, but Dinesh, the author, got on the best seller list, not me.
Phil at 9:27AM on May 3rd 2007
17. It is difficult to correct all the mistakes in the article on Turkey written by Dinesh D’Souza. He seems to be quite ignorant of the facts and of what is really happening in Turkey. That he is in need for some serious study for a deeper understanding of Turkey is crystal clear. What is not so clear is his real intentions in writing such a piece of nonsense. Could it be that he is trying to pay some kind of debt to the Bush government that gives all its support to an Islamic party in Turkey in order to present it as a successful “moderate Islamic model” to all other Islamic countries in the Greater Middle East?
AKP (Justice and Development Party) has come to power four and a half years ago in an election where he obtained two third of seats with only one third of the votes. In those years they did everything they believed suitable for their hidden agenda such as trying to ban adultery and alcohol, filling the government posts with people known for their religious tendencies rather than their merits, bringing religion to all aspects of education, disregarding the activities of outlawed religious sects (in fact, encouraging them), commenting that it is not the job of European Court of Human Rights when the court upheld the decision of the Turkish court on the ban of turban, religious symbol of head cover for women, in government offices and universities…
Economy, a field where AKP claim they are the most successful, is actually no more than a fragile area. Huge masses of Turkish population still suffer from the bitter IMF policies and unemployment. The increase in Turkish exports is not due to successful domestic production but rather due to large percent of import parts in domestic products. Current account deficit clearly indicates how fragile the Turkish economy is.
When it comes to foreign politics, it is seen that the AKP government has almost totally failed in all major issues regarding Turkey. No targets, neither the EU bid, the red lines in northern Iraq, nor the resolution in Cyprus could be achieved. Only irreversible compromises on the most vital Turkish interests have been carried out in the name of bold incentives. Turkish public still cannot understand why Turkish army is not allowed to strike the bases of the PKK, an internationally recognized terrorist organization harbored in northern Iraq with the US approval whereas the US itself destroyed a whole country, Iraq, in the name of fighting against terrorism.
It is true that the AKP government has vigorously sought the EU membership. However, they never really wanted to do it. Their hidden objective has always been to reduce the power of the military, which they see as the biggest obstacle in front of their Islamic policies. The process worked well with the EU having the same objective. As for the US, as long as it served their policies, particularly in Iraq and in Middle East, the AKP government has been given a go.
With such a large foreign support, the AKP government carried on smoothly to erode the basic pillars of the regime: secularism. That is why it has always been in fight with the judiciary, the universities, the army, and the presidency. Supposing that they can do whatever they do since they have the majority in the parliament, they have always ignored the checks and balances in the country. As a result, hundreds of their bills were annulled by the constitutional court or were returned to the parliament to be seen again by the president.
The mass rallies by millions in Ankara and Istanbul showed how Turkish people really feel about the AKP government. Especially Turkish women proved once more that they would not give up their rights given by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1934, long before many western countries.
Westerners are inclined to see the turban problem in Turkey as a freedom issue. Islamists also claim that by not allowing Turkish women to cover their heads, Turkey violates their basic religious rights. The problem is deeper than it seems. In fact, it is the hidden Islamic AKP agenda that abuses religion. Most Turkish women traditionally cover their heads with traditional headscarves. What AKP wants is freedom for turban, a typical symbol of Islamic sects. The real issue is the general restriction of women rights under the guise of Islam, something Turkish women will never accept. Now, larger chunks of Turkish public clearly see that AKP is merely abusing the religious feelings of devout Muslims for its political interests.
As for Atatürk’s reforms, it seems that D’Souza needs some corrections here, too. Atatürk never wanted Turkey to become a non-Muslim country, he wanted it to be a secular country where the religion is separated from government affairs. Mr. D’Souza, see the difference? Atarürk’s target was to bring Turkey to the level of contemporary civilizations. That was the driving force behind all those reforms that he successfully applied, and that was the reason why Turkey is the only democratic country in the whole Islamic world today. The success of Atatürk’s ideals were very well exemplified in recent Ankara and Istanbul rallies by millions of people who shouted for his name and for “full independence” for Turkey as well as support for the Turkish army, which they see as the custodian of Atatürk’s reforms and ideals.
Turkish people look to the west for it is where the contemporary civilization lies. However, the regional policies of the EU and the US do not seem to be overlapping with those of Turkey’s. Turks are aware that the AKP government seeks to make Turkey a moderate Islamic country with the assistance of the US. The EU, on the other hand, is not sincere with its democracy discourse. Its aim is to keep Turkey at bay and under control without ever accepting as a member. The EU’s and the US’s common tool to achieve their aims is the AKP, which explains their “democracy” cries after the recent warning of the army.
The only point I agree with Mr D’Souza is his sentence that says “Ultimately the future of the country is in the hands of the Turkish people.” Yes, the future of Turkey is in the hands of Turkish people, not in the hands of the US and the EU puppets. This is the only way not to disturb Atatürk in his grave.
Hasan Unlu at 8:31AM on May 4th 2007
18. FIRST- We will not let ATATURK spin.-Turkey is democratic country and
will remain so.-Just follow the elections We do not need religion ,to
be involved with politics.
mike at 9:11AM on May 7th 2007
19. What a deep ignorance on the part of Mr. Dinesh D'Souza!!! Any further comment is simply waste of time.
Alaeddin T. Yoruk
Alaeddin T. Yoruk at 12:07PM on May 7th 2007
20.
Personally I think a secular Turkey would be more in the American interest than a moderate Muslim Turkey, but you cannot overthrow a demcratically elected government no matter what the election results. The majority deteremines the government in a true democracy, not the historical precedence.
Peter at 12:47AM on May 8th 2007
21. No Dinesh, you are totally wrong on this issue, 70% of the Turkey's population prefers to leave in a secular way. I think you have not much information about what Ataturk have done or you are so jelaous that you did not have such a great leader in your country. We are going to defend what Ataturk left to us, no matter what you guys think. Thanks
Sanver Ceylan at 12:52PM on May 8th 2007
22. The author is either totally ignorant or he has some other hidden agenda. I cannot think of an educated intellectual to write such an unsubstantiated article which totally lacks any serious substance. Sounds like unsophisticated old Welfare Party rhetorics. Sorry for the author. I hope he would avail himself of this opportunity read a little more.
Yuksel Sezgin at 4:20PM on May 8th 2007
23. If you don't mind let Turkish people have their own decision what they want..
Ataturk will live forever in our hearts and Turkey never will be an Islamic country even tho you die for it.. What a ignorance!!!
Fethiye Temiz at 11:20PM on May 8th 2007
24. Dinesh D'Souza!
What a dick head!
Ali Akademir at 12:32AM on May 9th 2007
25. Mr.Dinesh D'Souza should make an interview with Mr democracy ,take this opportunity read a little more and investigate .
What an ignorance,
ruhsuz at 6:47AM on May 9th 2007
26. Let Muhammed spin in his grave and let Turks be Turks.
Bugra ATSIZ at 4:57PM on May 12th 2007
27.
There are so many things that you don't know or they are wrong...one wonders how it is possible that they take this serious and publish it. Such an ignorance.
gul at 8:22AM on May 9th 2007
28. well...
ı am a Turkish advocate specialized in European and international Law...
first of all, the writer should not talk about the issues he doesn't know..
Does he live in Turkey? Answer: NO
So how can he make comments about the internal relations of Turkey!?
selin alpat at 1:54PM on May 9th 2007
29. We in Pakistan have seen what happens when the country abandons the secular creed of the founding father and resorts to allowing Islam in the state.
We in Pakistan forgot Jinnah's secular ideals and made Pakistan an Islamic Republic.
Don't make that mistake in Turkey. Turkey must remain committed to Ataturk's secularism.
YLH at 2:15AM on May 10th 2007
30. I stand for "freedom in private belief and preferences" for each ONE,s own self (whether he wants to be a holy or hollow person). I quote some other cleverer men's saying, which is a waste of intelligence versus this gigantic stupidity. Pease read the last quadret of Omar Khayyam for asses!
DIVINITY for BIGOTRY and ANARCHY
*The Bible is the Book of the Church… The Jewish faith stands behind the Old Testament. The Christian faith stands behind the New Testament. The Bible is the Making. And behind the Church stands Priesthood. #1
. Lloyd M. Graham, Deceptions of Myths of the Bible, Citadel, (Preface)
*Truth is never pure and rarely simple. Oscar Wilde
*Superstition is the religion of feeble minds. Edmund Burke
*Religion is the opium of the people. Karl Marx
*The priests of the different religion sects, dread the advance of science a witches do the approach of
daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies in which they live. - Thomas Jeffeerson
*The immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion, but they conceal the fact in public, because they are afraid of losing their incomes Bertrand Russell
*The prerequisite of a priesthood is a divine Avenger with man as a sinner and hence dependent on priests for salvation. To this end the process was continued: first the semi-mythic Elohist, rewriting and holifying the Jhwist’s characters, and finally the Priest declaring a personal God created the world in six days by saying “Let it be”. This God-concept of the priestly mind is the cornerstone of the Bible, and if it is false, everything based upon it is also false. #2-A
. Lloyd M. Graham, Deceptions of Myths of the Bible, Citadel, (Preface 2)
*To execute, every one for himself, the law of God’ is, no doubt, an admirable principle. For a Catholic, who believes that the Church knows the law of God, it may even be made into a rule of government. The results, as seen in Papal States, may not have been quite what most moderns would think desirable; for example, the Inquisition still practiced persecution, and issued edicts so late as 1841 ‘commanding all people to inform against heretics, Jews and sorcerers, those who had impeded the Holy Office, or made satires against Pope and clergy’; while in 1851 a railway across Romagna was prohibited on the ground that ‘railways produce commerce, and commerce produces sin’. #2-B
Bertrand Russell, Freedom vs. Organization, 1776-1914, London, Unwin Books, pg.139
*These reasons are derived in some sacred book which is considered so authoritative that its dicta must never be questioned. Most of the moral extortion which is practiced by the clergy or by those who give strengthening advice in the YMCA, is concerned with extorting hearers to obey such precepts; and failure to obey them is viewed conventionally as much more heinous than unkindness, or malice inspired by envy, or group hatred leading to political disaster. #2-C
Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics, London, Unwin Books, pg.139
*Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown, and partly as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing – fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. #2-D
Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian, London, Unwin Books, pg.26
*Abrose Bierce said, “To pray is to ask that the laws of the universe are annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy… Religion is a daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable”. #2-E
The Economist, Dec. 23rd – Jan. 5th, 2007, pg.81
*For God and Morality (The Economist- February 17th, 2007- pg.34)
These differences also have religious roots that are not easy to pull up. It is no coincidence that a map of north and south follows up the contours of Protestant and Catholic Europe. Protestantism’s fundamental insight is that the relationship between the believer and God matters above all. Catholics, in contrast, hold that relationship between believer and church is almost as important, and that the church, with its dogmas and rituals, acts as intermediary between its members and God. #2-F
The Economist, Feb. 17th, 2007, pg.34
With those brave stupids, two or three,
Who in their folly are so wise
They know what we scarce realize!
They only know the world, not we!
Thou’st better be an ass as well,
For they’re so sunk in assishness
That they call every man, unless
He be an ass, an infidel! #2-G
Arberry. Arthur J., Omar Khayyam. London, John Murray Ltd. May, 1952, pg.44
moonlover at 8:13AM on May 10th 2007