Abramowitz: Major Political Clash in Turkey between ‘Secularists’ and ‘Islamists’

Morton I. Abramowitz, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey during the first Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991, says many Turkish “Secularists” fear a government headed by the “Islamist” party of Prime Minister Erdogan could turn back the clock and introduce religion into public life. Abramowitz thinks these concerns are exaggerated. He adds that Turkey's nominee for president, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, is well known to the West for his conciliatory positions.

Turkey’s political scene is in an uproar these days over the choice of a new president. The prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the leader of the so-called Islamist party, the Justice and Development Party [AKP], has picked the Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. This has caused a big stir. Why?

The stir was first of all against Prime Minister Erdogan, whom many of the so-called Secularists considered arch-evil and a very deceptive man. They tried very hard to get him not to name himself. There were two groups at work here. One, the Secularists, who dislike Erdogan because of what they perceive as his religious aspirations for changing Turkey’s political system. He would also be sitting in the seat of Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, with a wife who wears a headscarf, and thereby is anathema to Secularists.

But at the same time, the members of his own party were worried about losing him to the presidency because the parliamentary elections are coming up, and he is their best vote getter. So he probably backed down for a combination of reasons. He picked Gul, who is equally appreciated in the AKP, who has had a lot of experience, actually much more governmental experience than Erdogan. Gul comes across in public as a man who doesn’t like to create controversy and who tries to find ways to ameliorate conflict. And he was the number two man in the party basically.

And he’s the foreign minister.

He has been foreign minister for the last four years. And certainly he is respected by people in the foreign ministry and by many of his colleagues in other foreign ministries around the world. The Secularists probably dislike him less, but they distrust him because he shares Erdogan’s political philosophy, which they think is aimed at changing Turkey’s status as a secular state. Gul’s wife also wears a headscarf. So both of those factors are of deep concern to many of the Secularists. The Secularists are trying to promote a sort of electoral coup by threatening to boycott the parliament. I don’t know if that can work.

Now the chief Secularists, of course, are the military, right?

Certainly there are many sources of secularism, but the guardian of the secular state has always been the military. That’s one of their functions. They believe their duty is not just to defend Turkey, but to defend the secular regime. They are very unhappy with Erdogan. And they don’t like this happening, but it does not appear that they will undertake a coup or anything of the sort.

If you’re a Secularist, you can also be a Muslim, right?

Absolutely. Most Secularists are Muslim. The question is how much of your religious philosophy you bring into the management of the state and of the social order. There are some who are deeply worried that somehow or other the Islamists will introduce Islamic law, the so-called sharia, as a governing element in Turkey. I think that’s highly, highly unlikely, and would create a huge revolution in Turkey. On the other hand, Secularists are always concerned that the Islamists, in power, will change the nature of Turkish life, leading to more headscarves, more attention to religious schools. Those are actually big issues. A friend of mine, who is a Secularist, wrote me a letter saying, “I feel the pressure from them on me all the time.” It’s a daily, living pressure of seeing somehow or other, religion becoming a greater force in Turkish life.

I was reading an interesting article today on the Internet. Gul’s wife wears a headdress. They have a daughter who goes to college. And the daughter, when she’s at home, wears a headdress. But when she’s in school, she wears a wig, the article said.

The Islamic headgear is verboten in public institutions. If you want to attend a university, participate in class, you can’t legitimately wear a headscarf. They will deny you the ability to participate.

But a wig is okay?

A wig is okay.

A headdress can be a big issue.

The headdress is a symbol of a reversion to the pre-Ataturk period. That’s in large part what it is.

You mean under the Ottoman Empire. . .

There was the fez and all those sorts of accoutrements of the time when the Ottoman Empire was a religious state. The headdress is viewed as an anti-Ataturk symbol and a political statement, not just an individual wanting to wear a headdress. It is a political statement that they are seeking to change the nature of the Turkish political entity.

Does all this furor over religion in public life distract from the big foreign policy issues? Turkey has had problems with the United States and in northern Iraq with the Kurdish problem, right?

Religion in public life has become a very polarizing issue. The country is quite divided now because it will be a genuinely historical change if the AKP has the government, the presidency, and the parliament. But you have to look at their record. This has been, by Turkish standards, a very successful government. It has not significantly changed the nature of the secular state at all. There are many constraints to it, including the military. So I believe that there are great constraints against Turkey becoming a religious state.

What is the U.S. reaction?

I don’t want to speak for the U.S. government, since I don’t belong to them anymore, but I think the United States believes they’ve done a good job. They’ve been democratically elected. We work together with them on many, many issues. And there’s no reason to, in any way, contest what is happening, although we all understand the conflicting tendencies here and the deep concerns. I myself have always been somewhat suspicious and skeptical, but that’s because of my own secular background.

When you say Islamist to an American, he thinks of al-Qaeda. Could Turkey become an extremist state?

That is out of the question. I don’t want to say there won’t be greater manifestations of religion, such as more people going to religious schools perhaps, maybe the freeing of the headscarf in public places. But I don’t believe this will fundamentally change the nature of the Turkish state. There are enough constraints. Also, these people want to get into the European Union. They fought very hard to become eligible for the European Union. Whether the European Union will let them in, who knows? It would be unfortunate if they didn’t. The Turks have been involved in a huge amount of diplomacy with Western countries. Turkey gets huge amounts of foreign investment now, which didn’t happen before this government, from $1 billion to $30 billion. When I look at the previous governments for the past fifteen years, compared to this one, it’s night and day.

Interesting. What caused this rebirth in Turkey?

A number of things happened. First, the previous administration, to their credit, had started a very serious program of commitment to the IMF [International Monetary Fund] to keep budgetary restraints. Second, they’ve opened up the market much more. Third, they’ve carried out a big privatization campaign. They have done a substantial number of the things that people talked about for years that weren’t being done.

Let’s touch on foreign policy a little bit. What are relations with the United States like?

Iraq is a central issue and has been the central issue between the United States and Turkey for a number of years. Turks feel the end result of U.S. military involvement in the first Gulf War and this Gulf War has produced something which they have always feared: a Kurdish state next door.

This goes back to the first Gulf War, when you were ambassador.

Yes, it’s not something that’s just happened. The Turkish public was against the first Gulf War and it was only because Turgut Ozal was president and had a majority in his party that the Turks participated in ways that helped us with that war. Before the second war started we had this big explosion when they turned down our efforts to let U.S. troops enter northern Iraq through Turkey. While there has been enormous growth in anti-Americanism over the past few years, or anti-Bushism, depending on how you look at it, right now the Turkish government very much wants the Americans to be successful, to keep Iraq together, and somehow prevent it from breaking up and having an independent Kurdish state. The Turks have an existential problem they have not been able to resolve: How do they deal with this entity which they fear may have a huge impact on their own domestic Kurds? Now that may be exaggerated fear, but it is certainly a fear.

In the latest election the result was:

A comparison of the seats these parties held in the Turkish Parliament before (Oct 27) and after Nov 3, 2002: MHP (National Movement Party, 57th government partner) 124 vs. ZERO.
DSP (Democratic Left Party, 57th government senior partner) 58 vs. ZERO.
ANAP (Motherland Party, 57th government partner) 71 vs. ZERO.
DYP (True Path Party) 81 vs. ZERO
YTP (New Turkey Party) 58 vs. ZERO
SP (Felicity Party) 46 vs. ZERO
AKP (Justice and Development Party) 59 vs. 360
CHP (Peoples Republican Party) 3 vs. 190
TOTAL in Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM): 550

http://www.allaboutturkey.com/parti.htm

The 10 % limit makes the party landscape somewhat volatile.

This is probably a good idea:

Erdogan's proposal for holding snap elections has caused a stir among political parties, which accelerated their efforts for concluding pre-election cooperation. Young Party (GP) Chairman Cem Uzan paid a visit to former President Suleyman Demirel to request him to take the initiative for election cooperation, which may become an alternative to the government, while the party's Deputy Chairman and Istanbul deputy Emin Sirin proposed that Baykal cooperate in the approaching general elections. Sirin said: "If the current state of affairs in Turkey makes it obligatory for us to enter the parliamentary elections on the CHP's lists without losing the party identity, we are ready to do it as a sacrifice."

Emin Sirin said the GP can cooperate with the DYP and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) as well. Sirin will meet with Baykal again in the future.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=44804

More than one ego has to be reduced for the benefit of Turkey.

Metropoll Strategic and Social Research Center conducted research on "Political Conditions in Turkey –April 2007." The research shows the highlights of Turkey's political picture and it is very important to analyze the results of the study. If the general elections were held today, only the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Republican People's Party (CHP) will be able to surpass the 10 percent threshold to enter Parliament. As of April, the AKP's vote is at 31.6 percent and the CHP's is at 14.2 percent.

With no other party able to pass the election barrier, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) trails the other two parties with 7.5 percent of the vote. While the True Path Party's (DYP) vote is at 4.7 percent, the Motherland Party's (ANAVATAN) is at 3.2 percent. The total votes of the two parties who continue their efforts to unite are at 8.3 percent. The Young Party's (GP) vote is at 4.7 percent and the Democratic Left Party's (DSP) is at 3 percent. The research shows that CHP, which raised its votes 1.3 percent due to its opposition to AKP during the presidential election process, will profit in elections. Professor Ã–zer Sencar of Metropoll said the increase of supporters for the main opposition party takes root from CHP's leader Deniz Baykal's strong opposition against AKP. DYP and MHP lost votes due to their passive attitudes during the presidential election process. Other independent research illustrates that three or four parties will be able to surpass the 10 percent threshold to enter Parliament.

According to the research, AKP, CHP, MHP and probably DYP - if they unite with ANAVATAN - will enter Parliament. The research argues that if the Constitutional Court annuls the presidential elections, AKP, who will act as an aggrieved party, would increase its supporters and would poll at 40 percent of the votes. Thus, the election campaign could stand on the secular-anti secular axis and only two parties, AKP and CHP would pass the election threshold. All the research shows that the political picture in Turkey will not change, if Turkey goes to election today.

As Turkey's former president Suleyman Demirel stated, "Twenty-four hours are a very long time in politics." It will be better for us to assess research results by not forgetting these cyclical factors and developments. Ankara is marching rapidly toward elections. How will Turkey's future be shaped by the presidential elections process? Which parties will pass the election threshold? We all see them.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=71823

“The Turkish military has expressed concern about a disputed presidential election, and indicated that it is willing to become more openly involved in the process.”

= Threat of a coup d’etat if the Islamacists try to take over and impose their views. There were large demonstrations this past week in Istanbul sponsored by the Army. Muzzies better watch their step as the spirit of the Turkish state of Gamal Attaturk still burns bright in the lives of a majority of Turks.

LOL! No, the islamists in Turkey are not of the same brand as the one in Pakistan or Iraq.

Talking about buzzards:

“Later that afternoon father and I went to see a ‘Tower a Silence.’ The tower lies on top of a small barren hill on the south side of town. It’s like a bug round brick well, with a diameter of approximately 50 meters. The high priests would take the body of the deceased up to the tower and lay it out for the vultures to pick clean. The Zoroastrians believe that burying the body is to pollute the earth and cremation is strictly forbidden, as the body will pollute the sacred fire. It is said that if the vultures pick the left side of the face off first the deceased goes immediately to heaven. If it is the right the deceased spends a hundred years in purgatory.”

http://seanpaulkelley.com/?cat=13

Yeah, excarnation... in the 1990s there was growing concern that the number of birds had declined and couldn't handle the business, too many Zoroastrians were dying.

All consuming faith: To keep an ancient custom, India's Parsees need to protect their vultures
by Debora MacKenzie
New Scientist
5 August 2000
Parsees are the religious descendants of the Zoroastrians of ancient Persia. They believe that earth, water and fire are sacred and must not be defiled by corpses. So they put their dead in funerary sites where hundreds of griffon vultures perform the disposal job. The funerary site of the prosperous Parsees of Bombay is known as the Towers of Silence, a well-known landmark in the city next to the Hanging Gardens Park on upmarket Malabar Hill.

But vultures from the griffon genus have all but disappeared across much of India over the past few years (see p 32). Poisoning with the insecticide DDT, widely used in India, was initially suspected. But that would be unlikely to affect only one genus of vulture, or to cause such an abrupt and widespread die-off, says Andrew Cunningham, a veterinary pathologist with London's Zoological Society. A more likely culprit is infectious disease, and last spring Cunningham found signs of viral infection in some vulture carcasses.

This is not really so much about secular vs islamic. “Moderate” Islam is supported by the USA in Turkey to serve as some sort of “see it work” example for the arabs. That makes these guys US stooges. At the same time they are also owned by the EU due to their aspirations to join. All of which says that they will surrender Turkish interests in our sphere of influence (Cyprus, caucasus, Irak, etc.) and renders them detremental to the future of the state. These guys are yours and eu stooges and must not be in a full political control position.

Here is an interesting analysis by Jurgen Gottschlich:

In December 2006, after an already tough negotiation process, the EU decided to postpone negotiations on eight important chapters until Turkey opened its ports and airports to Greek Cypriots. As a result, the AKP made a strategic decision: it would shift its focus away from the EU and shore up its power at home.
Erdogan had long hoped to win future elections as the politician who had paved Turkey’s way to Europe. But after the EU’s decision in December, it became clear to him that the European ticket would no longer score him any points with the voters. On the contrary, Europe’s rejection would ultimately backfire on him. That meant an end to his hope that the traditional tensions between the country’s opposing camps would be gradually overcome by the advance towards Europe and a general increase in prosperity. So from the start of this year, the AKP’s policy changed to one of securing power.

Although the Turkish president does not have executive power, he can intervene in the legislative process and by appointing significant officials play a much more active role than, for example, his German counterpart. Control of the presidency would give the AKP control of the bureaucracy and thus ensure its long-term power. It is also for this reason that the opposition wants to prevent the AKP from completing its takeover of the country’s top positions at all costs. Although its opponents have long accused the AKP of only serving its clientele, this has really only become the case as the chances of EU membership have declined. That is true on both sides: if the military had seen EU membership as a realistic possibility, it would have never threatened a putsch.

As it is, Turkish politics and society have been thrown back on themselves and are reacting in an all too familiar way. Neither side will give an inch; both think that it is the other who should make the compromises. A change is not to be expected in the foreseeable future.

http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-301/_nr-87/i.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.