Countries sometimes outgrow their founders. In my native country of India, for example, the "father of the country," Mahatma Gandhi, believed that each village should be economically self-sufficient, spinning its own cloth by hand and growing its own food. The other leading figure, India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, was a socialist who admired the Soviet Union's five-year plans. These two men defined the main choices facing India for a generation.
But eventually the Indians figured out that neither rural self-sufficiency nor Soviet-style state planning was the way to go. Watching the success of China, Indians opted for something else, in this case free market capitalism. Today free market capitalism offers the best hope for India to realize Gandhi's dream of wiping a tear off every Indian face.
Turkey has been in the clutches of Kemal Ataturk's militant secularism for two generations now. Ataturk abolished the Muslim religious courts in favor of the Swiss legal code, ended religious education in schools, legalized gambling and alcohol, replaced existing commercial laws with the German commercial law, outlawed Islamic dress in public buildings, abolished the Islamic calendar, changed the alphabet, and converted the great mosque of the Hagia Sophia into museum. Basically Ataturk tried to convert his country virtually overnight from a Muslim country into a secular European country.
Many in the West have long held Ataturk's Turkey to be a model for the Muslim world. But today no Muslim country is going the way of Turkey, and even Turkey has stopped going the way of Turkey.
Turks today are finding militant secularism to be a problem. Volkan Aytar of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation tells the New York Times, "This narrow shirt of secularism has become a little too tight and choking for Turkish society." Why should women be barred from wearing veils in government buildings? Why should only secular values be permitted in the public square? Why can't Turkey be modern and Muslim at the same time? Not only is Turkish secularism inconsistent with the religious values held by most people--Muslim as well as Christian--but secularism is also a threat to democracy. Every time religious parties stand to gain politically, the Turkish army warns that it is ready to subvert the democratic process through a military takeover.
On Sunday, Turks will have an opportunity to say farewell to Ataturk, to rebuke the generals, and to give extreme secularism a swift kick in the rear end. I predict it will happen, and that the traditional Muslim AK party headed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan will win a big victory. Shouldn't Muslim countries be able to live according to Muslim values? Isn't democracy preferable to rule by the generals? In finally laying Ataturk to rest, Turkey could yet provide a model for the rest of the Muslim world.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 5)
31. I thought your latest book was just some nutty sort of aberration by a failry normal person. Your current writing endorsing a party that would throw a modern nation striving to joing the EU back to the stone age world of Sharia Law is simply outrageous. You need lots of therapy, it would seem
Earl McHugh at 3:54PM on Jul 21st 2007
32. Not Only Turkey Ready To Bury Ataturk For Ever and God Willing All Ataturk Likes for Ever & Ever, A Shame on Humanity for Being Father of Nation With Out Values.
Dinesh you did a FINE Write-Up. People should learn to respect freedom of Expressions and not be nasty in their responses !!!>
Thank you,
Farooq Khan
Mr. Farooq Khan at 12:08AM on Jul 29th 2007
33. 9. Democracy is a warm, friendly word for tyranny. Where Ataturk was admittedly a dictator with arguably noble intentions, democracy makes the MAJORITY the dictator with SELFISH intentions. Which one would you pick? I would settle for neither. Rather, I would like to see every man and woman exist in a state of total self-rule.
So, you're an anarchist? Instead of majority rule ... no rule. Yeah, that should be an improvement over the 'selfish' majority. lmao
Do you think before you type? If so, don't admit it.
Thomas J Gassett at 4:39PM on Jul 21st 2007
34. Well, first of all, most of the muslims living in Turkey are not extremists...They are moderate muslims, not like the ones living in Iraq, Iran or any other Arabian countries...So one can not compare muslims in Turkey and muslims in Afganistan or in any Arab countries...
Secondly, since 1923, Turkey is a republic..but since 1950 it is being ruled by democracy...In the first 27 years there was only one political party, namely CHP...Ataturks party...Those were the years of Revolution and torture years for the muslim intellectuals, especially for Said Nursi and Mehmet Akif..
Well, CHP has never had closer links with the public...That's why they lost all the elections except the one in 1977...Contrary to public, CHP (Ataturks party) has been always having closer relations with the 'military' and 'elite secularist bureaucracy'...These two factors were always in power in Turkey...Even though we were governed by 'democratically' elected governments, the real governors were military and elite bureaucracy...
But in 2001 there appeared a hope for the nation coming from the 'innerside' of the nation...That was AK Party...Namely, Justice and Development Party...And in the elections of 2002, even after one year that it was founded, AK Party won the elections and came into power with the leadership of a real leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan...
Now Turkish militarists and elitists fear about the second, insallah, victory of AK Party tomorrow...Because they know that they are loosing their power in the 'deep governing' of the state...
Now the people are also concious and they know and support the right system DEMOCRACY...but not MILITARISM...I hope, Turkish people will show their conciousness about the democracy and re-elect the AK Party for the next 4 years against the militarist CHP and nationalist MHP...
Atilla at 6:19PM on Jul 21st 2007
35. We had an end to the mutual mass murders of Catholics and Protestants in the 18th century. Now it is time for Moslems to have their owen Enlightenmet.
Bob at 6:20PM on Jul 21st 2007
36. @ Thomas J Gassett (comment 30)
I must have had a stroke or something this morning... I can't believe that I am agreeing with you.
Maybe the very definition of the word 'democracy' is so broad.... I always thought that it had something to do with everyone having a bit of a 'say'... you know... the very opposite ot totalitarianism...
... this would be a good thing if the simple majority are actually supposed to be bound by their religion to try to enforce a totalitarian regime on everyone.
The one side is saying that the 'veil' or 'head scarf' should be an option... while the other side is saying that this 'option' immediately becomes an obligation.
I think that we should all be able to agree that forcing some of the population to be second-class citizens because of their sex, sexual-preference, religion or lack thereof etc. is not a good thing... but we can't ... 'cos we're stupid.
pboyfloyd at 6:29PM on Jul 21st 2007
37. Ghandhi loved India with all his might.And when he said that one of the things that will destroy our nation is "politics without conscience" he was right. You can not use India as an example of medernization because the inertia of the government has been slow in eradicating the CASTE religious system that has plagued india for generations now. Equal rights and justice does not come to the people just because the government passed the laws, but individuals in such society should strive to accord each other the respect and dignity they deserve. And until the Imams and Aluphas start inculcating in their students that allowing descenting views and opinions does not make them less izlamic. Allowing the rule of law rather than taking it upon themselves to change the world i.e raping a woman because she does not have a veil on, threatning those that disagree, OR KILLING YOURSELVE ALLONG WITH THOSE PERCIEVED TO BE SINNERS DOES NOT GET YOU CLOSE TO THE ALMIGHTY. I only hope that the politicians consciences spur them to put Turkey first no mater the outcome of this election.
onum at 7:08PM on Jul 21st 2007
38. TURKEY
It may be a mistake to compare the visions of Indian and Turkish political reformers. No religious ideology either mandated or prohibited the visions of Gandhi and Nehru, and hence, no religious ideology interfered with the peaceful evolution of the Indian economic structure from parochial self-sufficiency, to socialism, to free market. In contrast, after Kemel led Turkey to independence from the Ottoman Empire, Islamic canon law imposed in Turkey’s Islamic courts posed a serious impediment to Kemel’s vision of a modern, western-style, economically independent democracy. Hence, the first and every succeeding constitution of Turkey from 1921 has contained provisions which insure a strictly secular government.
The problem of Islamic law in Turkey has surfaced from time-to-time, and as you point out in your article, over eight decades after Turkey’s first secular constitution, it is again a pressing issue. I can agree that it is time for the military feature of “military secularism” in Turkey to abate, but I cannot agree that a return to Islamic law proposed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan is preferable in any way.
A brief review of the histories of the Turkish economic structure and the role of the Turkish military in government is required to understand why a return to Islamic law would seriously damage the country.
Throughout most of the 20th Century, Turkey had a semi-statist economic structure with
strict government controls over private sector participation, foreign trade, and foreign direct investment. However, during the 1980s, Turkey began a series of reforms, shifting the economy from a statist, insulated system to a more private-sector, market-based model. Further pro-market-economy reforms after the economic crisis of 2001 have led to vastly improved growth and integration into the world economy. In 2005, Turkey became a member of the G20 group of the world’s 20 largest economies. Notably, pro-Islamist politicians such as Erdogan have strenuously opposed many of the reforms that have produced these benefits.
Meanwhile, the military has not been the oppressive, negative influence that your article seems to suggest. It has traditionally been a politically powerful institution, charged with the duty to protect the Turkish Constitution and the unity of the country. By long-standing tradition and practice, the Turkish military have acted as custodians of national legitimacy, restoring public order from time-to-time and always preparing the country for a transition to a functioning democratic system. It has interfered in civilian government affairs only when economic and social anarchy was imminent, and true to the Turkish Constitution, it always returned civilian control after correcting the problems which threatened the fabric of society. This responsible conduct throughout the republic’s history has earned the military strong support from the nation, and it is widely considered to be the country's most trusted institution.
In recent years, the Turkish government has made efforts to reduce the military's constitutional power in order to comply with demands from the European Union. Unfortunately, these reforms support pro-Islamist politicians such as Erdogan because the military has traditionally held the responsibility to enforce the constitution’s strict provisions that guarantee a secular government.
The threat of a regressive, Islamic theocracy in Turkey is real. As recently as 2001, a Chamber of the European Human Rights Court found that the type of Islamic law Erdogan proposes is contrary to the principles of democracy and fundamental human rights. It said,
“[T]he Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. […] It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”
A seventeen-member Grand Chamber of the European Human Rights Court upheld the decision in 2003.
Erdogan is not a moderate Muslim who would be satisfied with permitting moderate Islamic principles to invade the government. His political origins are with the Milli Gorus, a radical and political Islamist movement that has often attacked Turkey’s secular regime and its Constitution. During his term as the mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan gave a speech in which he attacked Turkey’s constitution as “a huge lie,” promoted Islamic law for Turkey, and made clear that “One cannot be a Muslim, and secular.” A video clip of one of Erdogan’s speeches may be seen at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg3hkWCnA8c
The following is the translated transcript of the speech in which Erdogan gives his views of secularism.
"If the people want it, of course secularism will go away. You cannot rule this people by force; you don't have the power to do that. This [i.e. secularism] cannot work in spite of the people.
"And anyway, for the love of Allah, what is this secularism? You ask them to define it. They can't. They say that it varies from place to place. So what sort of a strange thing is this [secularism]?
"Today, for every concept there is a definition in the dictionary. Every concept must have a definition […] The interior minister comes and says that the state can interfere with religion. What about the rest? Why don't you say the rest? No! He does not say that the religion can interfere with the state.
"Yesterday I was at the Bosphorus University; and some of the - probably impressionable - young people there asked me, 'Mr. Mayor, what do you think about secularism? There are concerns that secularism is disappearing. What will happen?'
"This is what I said to those young friends: 'In the West they say, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God's. But this country's interior minister says that Caesar has rights but God does not!'
"But the fact is that 99% of the people of this country are Muslims. You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular! When both are together, they create reverse magnetism [i.e. they repel one another]. For them to exist together is not a possibility! Therefore, it is not possible for a person who says 'I am a Muslim' to go on and say 'I am secular too.' And why is that? Because Allah, the creator of the Muslim, has absolute power and rule!"
The problem with Islam (as interpreted by pro-Islamist politicians such as Erdogan) is that it has no place for secular authority. Even moderate Muslim scholars agree that Islamic law should legally bind all people of the Muslim faith, as well as all people who come under their control. Islam simply has no tradition that permits a concurrent secular authority, as do other religions. The body of Islamic law, the Sharia, has provisions that deal with all aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues. As noted in the opinion of the European Human Rights Court, many of these provisions directly conflict with the establishment of a modern democracy, and as in Kemel’s day, many of the punishments traditionally applied under the Sharia are barbaric.
As India did in previous decades, Turkey has finally adopted a free market economic structure that can help it to evolve from a developing nation into a major player with full admission to the European Union. Institution of Islamic law would sabotage this progress, preventing Turkey from enjoying the economic progress that India has made.
So, I must disagree that the Turkish would benefit by replacing the existing benevolent (and decreasingly invasive) military secularism with a regressive Islamic theocracy.
loomisite at 7:59PM on Jul 21st 2007
39. First of all Ataturk is not buried under ground. He was mummified and his body has been kept in his tomb until today. Secondly, Ataturk was not against head scarves, his wife and his mom never threw them out of their heads, if Ataturk wanted to ban head scarves he would have started from his own family.
The fact is Ataturk was against hidden organizations and didn't allow them in the government. After he died some hidden organization members took government jobs and even they made their ways through the military ranks. They used Ataturk's principals as a disguise and banned religious practice inside government buildings and universities. They put some professors and journalists on tv defending head scarve ban first. Then they assasinated same people with bombs or by hiring hitmen. They owned nespapers and tv channels, so they claimed that religious terrorists killed their puppets.
Their plan nowadays is to divide citizens of Turkey as seculars and religious people. They will assasinate people, make false claims, they will do whatever it takes because they don't have any religion or fear of God.
Come on, just open your eyes, it's still the same fight going on between faith and enemies of religion for thousands of years.
adrian at 8:41PM on Jul 21st 2007
40. There is no such thing as extreme secularism. But there is such thing as religious extremism. A truly secularized society respect every religious and non-religious groups. Secularism, the way I see it, provides a bulwark against religious zealotry as we are witnessing today in the US and the Muslim world. I, for one, am weary of these religious screwballs such as Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et.al. for ramming religion down our collective throats. Enough is enough!
Earl at 8:03PM on Jul 22nd 2007
41. Dear Loomisite,
I think you forgot to write about the view of Erdogan after AK Party was founded...He said:
"We are changed and imroved ourselves"
So no speech of Erdogan before the foudation of AK Party could be a valid ground in order to express his view...AK Patians are calling themselves as "Conservative Democrats" not "Muslim Democrats"...
Okay..They are relatively more religious people than others but they do not have any problems with secularism...They have a problem with the interpretation of secularism applied in Turkey..That does not mean that they want to change the regime...What they only say:
"In the era of candidacy to EU, we should re-interpret our defiiniton of Secularism and we need to prepare a civilian constitution..."
Because all the Turkish constitutions prepared before were Militaristic Constitutions(1921, 1924, 1961, 1982)...Today the biggest problem of Turkey is this..'an insufficient militar constitution'...And I believe, Turkish people deserve a civil constitution as much as the rest of the world...
Atilla at 9:42PM on Jul 21st 2007
42.
"Militant secularists"? What a great description for America's Founding Fathers! And as history has shown, they were the most visionary nation builders of the last 250 years, maybe ever.
Too bad the Turks don't have Jefferson, Adams, Franlin, Payne, or Madison, advising themm right now. They will come to rue the day they decided to create a religous government, having had the taste of modern life.
Due to discriminatory nature of Islam,it might take the men a little longer than the women to realize the freedom they have lost, but they are on a trip back to the 7th century,authoritarian rule whether open like the Saudis, or hidden like Iran, primative Shiria law, and a more closed society.
Given that Christians in in the "secular" Turkey are hounded, discrimiated against, and even murdered, and have almost disappeared, once Islam steps in, will they be any Christians left from the once major Christian orthodox church? Or will it be wiped out for good?
And it will be interesting to see what happends to Turkey' bid to join the EU if it goes Islamic. Unless it is a completely different sort of Islam from what we see elsewhere, it is difficut to see how it could be integrated in the EU's system of values and principles.
Of course the military may step in. Hardly a great choice, especially that in many ways the Turkish military is quite integrated with our forces. But Bush does love bad choices.
cdnbirch at 9:59PM on Jul 21st 2007
43. Thomas J Gassett: Yes, I AM an anarchist, and I admittedly thought before posting. I stand by what I said, and "self-rule" is not synonymous with "no rule."
As the usually-hackey "magician" Aleister Crowley said, "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
Please think about that before replying. It's not something that can be easily digested immediately.
Seth at 10:50PM on Jul 21st 2007
44. cdnbirch : "Given that Christians in in the "secular" Turkey are hounded, discrimiated against, and even murdered, and have almost disappeared, once Islam steps in, will they be any Christians left from the once major Christian orthodox church? Or will it be wiped out for good? "
What you see is only the tip of the iceberg.
What's really happening is hidden organizations in Turkey assasinated missioners and used brainwashed-ignorant young people. Their media claimed that thousands of people converted to christianism and also they claimed that missioners opened thousands of apartment-churches. Another ridiculous claim was that missioners distributed 200.000 copies of Bible for free. Their media provoked young ignorant people. On the other hand nationalist cell groups popped up in small towns taking oath on guns to save the country from missioners' invasion! The result was assasination of christian priests and journalists all over the country.
Now, if you wanna see just the surface of the events and not the whole background and provocations for months and years on their media, then go ahead, blame the poor innocent people of Turkey.
Just don't forget, for centuries christian and jewish people lived together in peace on the same land where Turkey is situated now. Nobody can change that fact unless people like you refuses to see one step further and burn whole garden for one bad apple.
adrian at 11:00PM on Jul 21st 2007
45. If the secularism of Turkey's military is to be replaced with the kind of illeberal Islamic theocracy practiced in many other majority-Muslim countries, there is nothing to celebrate.
Sam at 12:43AM on Jul 22nd 2007