Spending a few days in Turkey and reading their newspapers makes it very clear that the Kemal Ataturk’s vision of a modernising, secular Turkish republic is still very much an ongoing battle. It should also be noted that very few secular Turks seem to be anti-Muslim, they are just pro-secular and as the overwhelming majority of people in Turkey are indeed Muslim (at least nominally), that the whole structure of politics are avowedly secular makes Turkey the front-line on the struggle against Islamist governance.
The news is abuzz with political skirmishes on that subject. Articles in the New Anatolian and Turkish Daily News (no individual article links unfortunately) discuss opposition to some municipalities trying to introduce alcohol serving ‘red light districts’ and banning its sale elsewhere. As many Turks drink raki (Ataturk’s favourite drink in fact), this is not just a matter for tourists.
Other articles tell of five teachers in Mersin being driven from their jobs and moved to different schools after pressure from local imams who were angry they were teaching evolutionary theory, on the grounds they were “destroying the religious beliefs” of children. The teachers’ union in Mersin responded furiously that their members have been punished for engaging in “secular, democratic and fact-based teaching”.
In another article, retired General Hursit Tolon has said that Turkey is “edging away from secularism, which is the first pre-condition of modernism”. He is in the process of forming a new political party to try and combat that drift. He also seems to be saying that “the intervention of the West, the European Union and the USA” are behind many of these problems. Exactly what he means by that I do not know but at least in once sense I suspect he is quite correct, though I do not see a conspiracy at work here (and as I cannot read Turkish, I cannot easily find out precisely what General Tolon means unless some Turkish blogger wants to clue me in) but rather the bull-in-a-china-shop threat springs from the parochial and often simplistic underpinnings of so much of the received wisdom that spews forth from the West.
Obviously the struggle between those who want to see laws enforcing Islamic principles and those who demand Turkey remain a secular state out in the open now. I do not know enough about Turkey to venture an opinion on how strong and coherent the political and social forces are defending secular values but historically the final bulwark against Islamic governance has been the Turkish military, who simply take over via a coup d’etat if it looks like the core principles which Ataturk set out are in danger. The US has a constitution to limit the scope of democratically sanctioned change, but for better or worse the Turks have their military fulfilling that function.
There is nothing wrong with the wishes of the plurality being thwarted if what they want amounts to tyranny, so whilst I deplore the past excesses of the Turkish military, I really have no problem the basic idea of them simply refusing to countenance the end of the secular Turkish republic. Democracy is a tool, nothing more and if a measure of it leads to an increase in liberty (and it usually does), then that is good. But it an excess of it leads to tyranny, no matter how popular that tyranny might be, then some sort of effective check is needed to unalloyed democratic politics. Are the social and political forces of secularism strong enough to survive without that final drastic check on Islamist aspirations? I am certainly not qualified to know but I have not heard that question even being asked by all to many people in the West when the subject of Turkey joining the EU comes up.
Yet should Turkey join the EU, without doubt the democracy fetishists will require the military to entirely step back from any political role and I cannot help wondering if the net result of that will be the inevitable progress towards an impeccably democratic but Islamic Turkish Republic that no longer seperates ‘church’ and state.
Some said much the same about secular Iraqi Ba’athism being a ‘good thing’ because it kept the Islamo-fascists at bay in that country, but although previous Turkish military regimes may have been no respecters of humans rights (to say the least), it does not seem to me that secular Turkey circa 2005 is comparable to secular Iraq under the Ba’athists. Yet do you think there is any chance the EU could see a positive role for the institutions in Turkey which simply will not countenance the development of an Islamic state? Not a chance. The great and good that make up Europe’s political elite are simply not smart or sophisticated enough to see past the simplistic notion “more democracy always good”. And of course given the crazed over-emphasis on the importance of democracy (rather than liberty) in Iraq, much the same can be said of the intelligentsia in the USA.
My brief stay in Turkey and exposure to its English language press gave me a tantalising glimpse of what is going on. However I just do not have enough of a feel for the country to know how things will shake out and it might be interesting to see what the Turkish blogosphere has to say.
“Would joining the EU destroy Turkey?”
Or would it destroy the EU ?
This seems more plausible, if the EU still exists in 10 years time, when it promised to admit Turkey.
Irrelevent beacuse that was not the question I was asking.
I think you’re rather underestimating the great and good of Europe’s political elite, unfortunately. It’s no secret that Turkish membership of the EU is very unpopular with this class and they would like to find a way of ditching Turkey. Forcing Turkey to dismantle the barriers preventing the establishment of an Islamic republic there and then claiming once it was established that an Islamic republic could not join the EU would be right up their street.
This isn’t to say that a democratic Turkey would automatically become an Islamic republic of course, but that’s probably unnecessary for the eucrats – a few pieces of Islam friendly legislation in areas such as gay rights, divorce and women’s rights would probably do the trick.
Personally I feel that more attempts should be made to bring closer countries into the EU, Romania, Bulgaria and some of the former Yugoslav states. I’m not at all sure that having Turkey in the EU right now would be a good idea, if only because of the geographical and security implications that would entail – not forgetting that Turkey has herself endured Islamic fundamentalist terrorism for some time now. What guarantees could Turkey provide the EU with for security of their borders against Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia etc? It’s an awfully long border and there are some pretty unpleasant people on the other side of it.
I think the reasons for having Turkey in the EU are about geo-politics. Turkey is a populous and powerful country on the bridge between Europe and Asia. Last decade there was much talk of it looking east and forming a Turkic community with Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan among others.
The other area where it could look is to extend its influence in its old imperial provinces in the middle east. The instability in Iraq makes this more likely. We may even have a situation where the US asks Turkey to send troops (i.e. peace keeping troops) into parts of Iraq.
Given these scenarios, Europe and the West have a problem. Do we allow Turkey to become an increasingly powerful state on the borders on Europe that has great influence in parts of the former Soviet Union and the oil-rich middle east? Or do we try to anchor Turkey into Europe/EU and thereby exercise some control over its actions?
FWIW, I think the latter is the real reason for having Turkey in the EU. No one really wants an Ottoman Empire Mark II. However, continued instability in the ME and the prospect of a nuclear Iran means Turkey will have to respond in the interests of its own security.
except like the guy said, he not asking about how the eu would be changed by turkey but how would turkey be changed by the eu. i think the guy is saying correct and we will give away what makes turkey a secular state and ataturk’s legacy will be lost. but so many just want to be able to work in the west, they cannot see more than be able to do that
“i think the guy is saying correct and we will give away what makes turkey a secular state and ataturk’s legacy will be lost. but so many just want to be able to work in the west, they cannot see more than be able to do that”
OK then I’ll answer the question:
The question will become irrelevant and soon. Here’s why:
Given the huge number of problems that Turkish membership of the EU (as it is currently formed) proposes, the chance of Turkish membership is zero in 10 years time.
Even if Turkish membership of the EU happens big things can change in 10 years. Already, since Turkish membership was proposed, the European views on the Islamisation and democracy will have undergone a sea-change. This year alone, we’ve seen riots in France and Belgium, in Britain, and now, today, in Australia. This will have already changed the views of the political classes not to mention the populations.
In 10 years time Turkey will not be a member of the EU, but the EU and, for that matter, the rest of the world, will not look like anything it is like today.
It doesn’t strike me as very libertarian to believe liberty is best protected by the altruistic whim of a few generals.
I’ll agree that democracy is not “always good” but the essential corollary of that statement is that democracy is “very rarely bad”. I don’t mean bad as in elected governments that do stupid or harmful things rather that free and open democracies very rarely give rise to tyrannical homocidal regimes.
It is still very relevent. Even if there is no EU in 10 years (not unimaginable), in the meantime Turkey may contort itself to do the things at the behest of the EU right now, and that alone could shift things dramatically… perhaps for the better and perhaps for the very much worse if more democracy = more islamisation.
But the thing is, political activists LOVE democracy because more democracy means more politics and that, they think, is always a better things. And they are quite wrong.
Who cares if it is ‘libertarian’ or not… is it true in Turkey?
Really? And if a plurality in Turkey one day decide to impose Sharia on everyone in Turkey, that is no big deal?
The very process of reform – admitting to the Armenian genocide, accepting the national sovereignty of the whole island of Cyprus, coming to a civilised and lasting settlement with Greece (which would convincingly allow the latter to reduce defence spending – war has been a real possibility as recently as the ’90s, despite being theoretical ‘allies’ under NATO), taking the jackboot off the necks of the Kurds – is the biggest threat to date to Kemalism and the military power that has always enforced it.
Obviously the rump Ottoman Empire *should* have been occupied and properly dismembered in 1918 (and Kurdistan established as a state), in which case we wouldn’t have to worry about any of this now as Turkey wouldn’t possess any territory in the geographical boundaries of Europe with which to claim ‘European’ status or such strategic importance. Unfortunately, Britain failed at Gallipoli and again failed to back the Greeks up against Turkey in the ’20s and we thus find ourselves today in a situation with no easy or palatable solution.
i agree about getting out of kurdistan for is nothing but trouble and if not want to be turks, so what? let them go. but you are crazy about cyprus. why should turks accept second class citizenship again in a greek dominated island treating them like hell? and what settlement with greece is needed other than to leave each other alone?
Deniz – because Cyprus is a sovereign state (and an EU member), the invasion was illegal, and neither EOKA-B nor their friends in the Greek military junta are around any longer to justify its continuation. Enosis is not on the table any more and has not been for decades. Although brutalised by centuries of Ottoman rule the Greeks are a modern, civilised people and no longer believe in Ottoman solutions to inconvenient minorities, Turks or otherwise.
There are still serious unresolved airspace and territorial waters disputes in the Aegean between Greece and Turkey to be dealt with. If there is not a full and final resolution on both sides one of the constant airspace feints between the Greek and Turkish air forces will turn nasty one day when relations are tense and the whole mess will start up again.
The many European delusions about Turkey, including the Armenian “genocide” questions and the pure innocence of the Kurdish terrorists and the peace-loving orientation of the Greeks with respect to Cyprus, do not bode well for easy or even possible Turkish entry into the EU. And that may not be a bad thing. Security and secular Ataturkism are more important than suicidal democracy, at least right now. And what is the actual benefit to Turkey of jumping aboard the sinking European ship? In ten years this will be even more obvious. Taiwan, South Korea, Kuwait, even Singapore, have managed to move toward civil or at least economic freedom while dominated by dictators. I believe Turkey will increasingly look toward the US rather than Europe.
that does not answer question of why should turks in cyprus accept being united with greeks? is not self determination for turks too? people still have memory of way were treated under greek rule just as many have bad memory in other places of turk rule.
and what matters illegal to turks in cyprus under previous oppressive greek rule? sovereign state means oppression always legal, no?
Lots of us were on the recieving end of the Ottomans but that is old history now. What is much more recent history is not so pleasing either. Explain why the “Civilised Greeks” were such strong supporters of 1991 Serbian aggression against the Croatian and Bosnian people then. The Turks are crazy if they just trust in Greek goodwill in Cyprus.
As a Turkish Speaker, though not a Turk, I am reasonably qualified to speak on this matter.
Since the coming to power of the AK Party Government, there has been a struggle going on, mostly away from the eyes of the public. This has over recent months become a lot more overt.
The alcohol issues is the latest in a long line of arguments, where the government has tried to pull the country back to islamic ways and the secular establishment has fought back. The secular side has won more battles than it lost and many began to believe that the battles were all show on the part of the government. Recently they seem to be making more headway.
There are five very big problems though.
1) The business elite are prostitutes. They are by am large not natural supporters of the islamists but they know where their monetary interests lie. Therefore potentially the biggest voice against islamisation is largely quiet.
2) The army has been at least partially made impotent by legislation made at the behest of the EU. At the end of the day they have the guns, but as the last post modern military coup shows, they didn’t actually have to use them before. Now interim options are lost. (By the way military coups are easy when there is no plurality of media, now they would need to take over 100 or so TV stations.)
3) Press laws make in depth discussion difficult. I don’t know if these things are ever reported but the Prime Minister sues anyone who ever dares to “insult” him. As most of his mistakes come from the fact he is ignorant and uneducated, this makes political discourse difficult. These laws are actually far more important for press freedom than anything the EU gets worked up about. They have always existed but noone has used them to this extent before.
4) The west worries mostly about the Kurds. In my humble opinion that problem is secondary to other issues of freedom. (After all 20% or so of the population is Kurdish, 50% is female and for the most part second class).
5) The ruling elite are actually nearly all graduates of Imam training schools. They do not understand the concepts of freedom and democracy in the least. It is obvious from their statements that they lack the philosophical foundations to discuss any of the issues that we see talked about on Samizdata every day.
Where does the EU fit into all this?
1) They have ruined the one, albiet not very liberal, insurance against creeping islamisation.
2) They are falling for Mr Erdogans talk of freedom over issues like head scarfs. (The girls are not free to make their own choices in many cases)
3) They are pushing Turkey to spend too much energy on issues that are not important for Turkey’s development.
4) They give many Turks, who are sensitive about these things, the idea that they are enemies, always focusing on the Kurdish issue.
5) They ignore the fact that the government is trying to push religion into daily life.
If Turkey actually joins the EU its economy wil be ruined by the EU’s regulations and the fight will become even more precarious.
I live in Istanbul.
Don’t underestimate the continued influence of Ataturk. There’s a portrait in almost every room and he is beyond reproach. You may have noticed his picture on the masthead of most of the newspapers, English language or otherwise. You can’t joke about the guy, even with your most irreverent friends. (Like the king of Thailand, if that helps).
He’s the focal point – and I believe will continue to be for a generation more – who will keep Turkey secular until there are clearer reasons in the minds of the Turkish people to stay secular – reasons which EU membership could provide. From there, further liberalisation (or at least, democratisation) can follow. (Then all we’ve got to do is liberalise the EU itself… :- )
As for secularism, my students don’t care if I drink or even eat pork as they know I’m foreign. They are not threatened by difference; modern secular Turkey is largely at peace with itself and confident. One issue, however, is women who cover their heads – as in France, access to education is difficult for women who want to cover. As usual, the countryside is a good deal behind metropilotan areas.
I used to live in Prague. In my view communism has crippled their view of private property. It was not unheard of for teachers to arrive back at their rented flats to find the landlord, feet up and a cup of tea in hand, running their heating bills up and cooking in their oven! The Turks share more of our values in this respect than the Slavs.
Of course, all this is my personal experience only and YMMV!
I think the Turkish militaries devotion to secularism was grounded in the need to maintain an effective military and political system in order to fend off the Soviet Union. The fall of the Soviet Union removed the great external threat which in turn allowed the fault lines in Turkish society to open up.
Frankly, I don’t think the EU has as much influence within Turkey as many imagine. The EU can only provide economic benefits which I think are overshadowed by the more immediate internal power struggles. Most factions within Turkey will look first to maintain or gain power and then worry about economics later.
I am just going by the (admittedly small) sample of stuff I read in the English language Turkish newspapers. They certainly talk about the EU a whole hell of a lot and that leads me to believe that the influence (even if not directly) may be more than you think.
I find this comment thread very interesting and informative!
i Will be more happy about Turk committment to secularism when they don’t care even when they know you are a Turk.
I have many muslim friends in Sarajevo. some drink alcohol, some eat pork, some doesn’t and no one cares. Is Turkey like this? I would be happy if that was so.
sometimes goran. sometimes my tight armani jeans make people see me as fashionable, sometimes as whore :-/
‘The many European delusions about Turkey, including the Armenian “genocide”’
Please enlighten us with your knowledge Robert Speirs….
Shannon said: “I think the Turkish militaries devotion to secularism was grounded in the need to maintain an effective military and political system in order to fend off the Soviet Union.”
Not only the Turkish military. The West needed Turkey to put a break of Soviet influence in the region. And it didn’t start with the Soviet Union.
In the 19th century, everyone knew the Ottoman Empire was failing and that it would break up. The question was how. France and Britain were worried about increasing Russian influence in and around the Balkans. This culminated in the Crimean War when they went to war with the Ottomans against the Russians. The Crimea stayed, of course, under Russian control, but Russia didn’t get to control the south coast of the Black sea.
Russia’s problem was that its fleet was stuck in the Black Sea, with the Ottomans controlling the Bosporus. One Russian plan was to carve up the Empire, including present-day Turkey, between the Great Powers. In particular, they proposed turning Constantinople into a neutral city under joint Great Power control.
But Britain and France helped keep the Ottoman Empire together, mainly, as a counter to Russia. That’s why Britain failed to support the Greeks during the Greek-Turkish war. This ensured the creation of the Turkish state as we know it today.
The Ottoman Empire had been, like all empires, multi-ethnic. Turkey, on the other hand, was to be turned into a “nation-state”, this involved among other things discrimination against its minorities including the Armenians, the Kurds and also ethnic Greeks. Greeks were thrown out of their ancestral homelands in western Anatolia in what were called ‘population exchanges’ in those days, but now would be called ‘ethnic cleansing’.
Eastern Thrace (the current ‘European’ bit of Turkey and the bit where Istanbul is) was supposed to be exempt from these population exchanges, but anti-Greek pogroms by Turkish nationalist forced many Greeks to leave.
It’s no wonder that many Greeks, especially diaspora Greeks, don’t much like the Turks.
This talk about a secular Turkey is a joke. When tourists visit major cities in Turkey they believe it to be a secular country, but if they are to venture off to the rural parts, they will find that Turkish Muslims are just as extreme as their Arab counterparts. Just take a look at the behavior of Turkish immigrants living in Germany (i.e.: pro terrorism demonstrations, honor killings, etc…).
How is it possible that Turkey waged jihad against the native Christian populations of Anatolia (Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians) in 1915 and somehow became secular under Ataturk only a couple of years later? People have to understand that secularism isn’t necessarily a person’s choice in Turkey but is enforced by law; a good example of this is the ban on headscarves.
…..they will find that Turkish Muslims are just as extreme as their Arab counterparts. ….
I think you overstate your case. Turkey is a much freer and more secular country than almost any other Muslim country. However, I agree that what the tourists see is not the real picture.
….I have many muslim friends in Sarajevo. some drink alcohol, some eat pork, some doesn’t and no one cares…..
As Deniz says, it varies. In some places its fine in others not.
…….They certainly talk about the EU a whole hell of a lot…….
They all use the EU for their own arguments. So secularist think it will protect them from the religious and the devout think it will free their women to wear head scarves in public buildings.
…..Don’t underestimate the continued influence of Ataturk……
Officially yes. Even Mr Erdogan claims to be following in his footsteps. Believe me though, if the law were changed, a sizable minority would be slagging him off non stop.
…….my students don’t care if I drink or even eat pork as they know I’m foreign. ……
The last 5 words are key. Turks love foreigners and are incredible warm and hospitable people. They tend to be far less tolerant of their own when they choose a different path.
When moonshine Raki killed a number of people recently, there were those who were very happy. I heard it with my own ears.
I’ve been a bit negative, Turkey has a lot going for it ($4.5 Billion new investment yesterday). Commentary is usually however either “Everything is wonderful” or “Turkey is a hell hole with no human rights”. Neither is true.
Calling the Armenian so-called genocide a “jihad” is ignorant and ahistorical. Whatever violence was done to Armenians – and there is much evidence to show it was far less than generally supposed – was traceable far more accurately to Armenian terrorism and collaboration with the Russian army that invaded Western Turkey than any Islamic revulsion against Christian Armenians. Some interesting questions:
Was an accurate census ever conducted of Armenians before the First World War?
How many Turks were killed by Armenian terrorists?
I realize these are talking points patriotic Turks always bring up, but that doesn’t make them automatically irrelevant.
“So-called genocide”? You’re either a Turk, an idiot or both. There is well documented evidence of Turkey’s massacres of Anatolia’s Christians during the early 20th century. Including admission of guilt by the Turkish government shortly after Ataturk took power. The Turkish government now denies those claims since they don’t want to pay reparations.
Genocide info
“Turkey contends that the number of Armenians killed is vastly exaggerated; that there was no systematic effort by the government to exterminate the Armenians; that traitorous nationalist Armenian parties allied with the Russian Empire during World War One bear responsibility for the suffering that befell their people; that during this time of “international war and inter-communal struggle” Armenians weren’t uniquely afflicted, suffering along with Muslims, Jews, and other subject peoples of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey also refers to the deportations of the Armenians — most infamously via marches to the Syrian deserts during which many were killed or died from disease and starvation — as “relocations.” The problem for Turkey is that records of the “Young Turk” government which orchestrated the killings, dispatches from Western diplomats, military officers, and aid workers, and testimonials of genocide survivors all confirm a systematic effort to wipe out the Armenian minority.”
A close examination of ANY analysis made about turkey will show that there is a tremendeous nagative and false information is being disbursed by people who are not known authorities on the subject. Turkey is a nation build by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who hve been admired through out the world while living and afterwards. Serv was not a legal treaty because Vahdettin signed it without the authority of the Prliament (this is how far back democracy goes for turkey) Ataturk did not accept meanwhile Kurds offered thelands serv gave them to Russia for protection Russia refused they then asked Ataturk and under the condition of One Nation One flag fought against occupiers. Ataturk proclaimed that every one who lives and ccepts Turkish nation is a Turk. this is a brief history. Today Turkey is in a turmoil because of the neglect of East and souteast of turkey. But more so because of the powers who wanted to use those parts for illeagal arms and drug trafficicing. They done their outmost to create a lawless society in those parts.Not kurds but PKK there is a difference used the illeagal income to influence Europe vs. and push for the division of turkey. Turkey has 70 million young population and borders larger than any other European nation. Secular Turkey is pasif but make no mistake is very alive and will not allow a totalitarian Islamic Government. The current parliament is trying so far did not gained an inch in reality. My generation and generation before and after are the sons and daughters of the Republic and live with the