Turkey Analyst,
vol. 2 no. 18
14 October 2009

WHAT THE COLUMNISTS SAY

The landmark speeches delivered by President Abdullah Gül and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan respectively, in which a new, libertarian discourse about Turkey was presented, heralding a departure from traditional nation state policies, has caught wide attention. The liberal vision presented by Gül and Erdoğan has been generally hailed, although the critics have pointed to the discrepancy that exists between the liberal rhetoric and the AKP government’s recent recourse to state authoritarianism.

ÇANDAR: E PLURIBUS UNUM
Cengiz Çandar in Radikal makes the observation that president Abdullah Gül took care to deliver a unifying message in his speech to parliament. Listening to the president, I was reminded of the sentence that adorns the national emblem of the United States, “E pluribus Unum”. There was no reason to expect the president to deliver a message that would have created doubts about the continued attachment to the trinity of “one nation, one state and one flag”. What matters more is what that overriding architecture contains. Abdullah Gül stressed that diversities are to be protected, as it befits a democratic state, within a framework of unity. I note that (Kurdish nationalist) DTP-leader Ahmet Türk was pleased with the president’s speech. “All that needs to be done is to constitutionally codify what the president has said”, Türk stated. And that is up to the parliament to accomplish.

ŞAHIN: A DIFFERENT LOOK AT GÜL’S SPEECH
Haluk Şahin in Radikal describes Abdullah Gül’s speech as a landmark event. It is probably the first time ever that a president of the republic in forceful language has condemned the practice of setting the law aside in the name of the “interests of the state”. Gül’s speech was informed by a liberal ideology. It is apparent that the former Islamists have fully adopted a liberal rhetoric, that it makes them feel more secure and more in tune with modernity.  The Islamists used to say “don’t interfere with our religion”; today they say “no one should interfere with others”. Yet, the question is who is interfering with whom? The supporters of the AKP government are of course quick to point fingers at the usual suspects, the Kemalists in the military and elsewhere. But then, we should ask ourselves who it is that hinders visitors to restaurants in Beykoz in Istanbul of enjoying their rakı? Who is it that has raised all kinds of bureaucratic obstacles to wine-growing, urging peasants to grow vegetables instead? Who is that will ensure that Turkey’s international grade concerning the freedom of the media will slip even further in the years to come? And who is that does not employ those who are not like themselves, making participation in the prayer and the wearing of the headscarf prerequisites for employment and advancement in the bureaucracy?

ALTAN: ERDOĞAN’S SPEECH WAS MAGNIFICENT
Ahmet Altan in Taraf is enamored with the speech that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gave at the congress of the AKP. It was a magnificent speech. I loved it. Erdoğan, who is supposed to be “conservative”, did something that no other leader has done in the past: he delivered a “progressive” message that no one else had dared to do until now, courageously embracing all those who have been condemned and trampled upon by the official, statist ideology. Erdoğan is a politician who can make sudden u-turns, who can disappoint. Yet, although he has on occasion failed to live up to his promises, he is ultimately a courageous leader. And I believe that Erdoğan’s speech marks a point from where there can and will be no return. What characterizes Erdoğan, besides his courage, is his ability to evolve, to educate himself. That is what sets him so much apart from his political rivals, who all remain trapped in the narrow definitions of the past, in “Turkishness” and “Kurdishness”. Erdoğan embraces all these categories. But how are we to explain Erdoğan’s remarkable ability to develop? I believe that the explanation is to be found in the fact that Erdoğan competes in an altogether different category than what CHP leader Deniz Baykal or MHP leader Bahçeli does. His views are informed by the relationships that he have come to forge with other world leaders, and by his ambition to be a respected leader at the world stage.

ALKAN: GOOD LUCK, MR. ERDOĞAN
Türker Alkan in Radikal wholeheartedly subscribes to Erdoğan’s vision. Like the Prime Minister, I believe that our culture has been enriched by diversity and that we should fully embrace its different colors, instead of suppressing them as we have been in the habit of doing. Yet, I cannot but recall other speeches that Erdoğan has delivered, such as the one in which he described minarets as “bayonets”. Has he really changed? Perhaps, we will see. That question notwithstanding, it should be noted that Erdoğan has painted a picture, not of the existent Turkey, but of a Turkey that ought to exist. A good speech, well crafted, can always catch the attention of the nation; it is infinitely more difficult to translate words into reality; to implement the kind of changes in mentality to which Erdoğan referred to in his speech remains a difficult challenge. The discrepancy between the vision presented by Erdoğan in his speech and the actual reality of Turkey was apparent in a recent survey that showed that a majority of our citizens do not want to share neighborhood with atheists, Christians and Jews.

BAYRAMOĞLU: A NEW TURKEY IS BORN
Ali Bayramoğlu in Yeni Şafak writes that Turkey rightfully deserves to be called a new Turkey. This country is in the middle of a process of remarkable change. Even the military has changed; it had to. Consequently, the new openings in the Kurdish issue and with Armenia do not run the risk of being endangered by any internal political dynamics, by the military or by nationalism. We are well beyond that point now. What has made change possible are the international conjuncture – and the evolution of society. The notion of a society polarized along ideological lines has ceased to have any pertinence from a societal perspective. From a society neatly defined by self-enclosed ideological categories, we have evolved to a commonwealth where different value systems (Islam, secularism, nationalism, liberalism etc) not only exist side by side, but are above all in interaction.

ÜLSEVER: THERE IS CONSIDERABLE OPPOSITION TO THE KURDISH OPENING AMONG THE PUBLIC
Cüneyt Ülsever in Hürriyet notes that opinions surveys indicate that the public remains conspicuously reticent about the Kurdish opening of the AKP government. One survey, commissioned by the AKP, reveals that 48 percent support the opening, with 35 percent expressing a negative view. Another poll shows 55 percent in favor, with 45 percent objecting to the Kurdish opening. These figures deserve to be carefully studied. Nobody should rejoice at the levels of support for the initiative. Keeping in mind that the specifics of the initiative remain to be disclosed, the Kurdish opening so far only amounts to a declaration of the intention to bring the war to a close, to save lives, to which no one should object. Thus, the levels of support for the initiative should have been close to 100 percent. The fact that there is on the contrary considerable opposition represents a serious caveat. Apparently, there is widespread suspicion that the opening will entail concessions to the PKK. The project of “national unity” is about to turn into a prescription for “national dissolution”.

ULAGAY: PERHAPS WE WERE BETTER OFF DURING THE REIGN OF THE MILITARY JUNTA?
Osman Ulagay in Milliyet feels deeply worried by the way Prime Minister Erdoğan keeps on defending the astronomic tax fine imposed on the Doğan Media group. Every sentence uttered by Erdoğan – most recently in an interview accorded to the Wall Street journal, where the Prime Minister declared that the under-vegetation in the economy is going to be “cleaned up” – exudes the conviction that “I have the power of the state in my hands, and I can use it as I see fit”. Thinking about this, I recall those years in the early 1980s when I was employed at the daily Cumhuriyet. Being a journalist during those days, under a military junta, was never easy, and our daily was twice shut down. Nevertheless, we mostly managed to figure out where the boundaries lay, and managed to avoid drawing the fire of the regime. It is more difficult to anticipate the actions of our current rulers, since we are unaccustomed to their ethics and unsure about their moral and judiciary codes. And, it is well known that a government that enjoys wide popular support can feel less restrained in its execution of arbitrary state power.

The Turkey Analyst
The Turkey Analyst is a publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Joint Center, designed to bring authoritative analysis and news on the rapidly developing domestic and foreign policy issues in Turkey. It is published weekly, and includes a topical analysis, as well as translations and summaries of selected Turkish news reports. It is edited and compiled under the supervision of Svante E. Cornell, Halil M. Karaveli, and M. K. Kaya.

The analyses appearing in the Turkey Analyst are often written by the three Editors. The Turkey Analyst occasionally publishes signed guest analyses.

The Joint Center
The Joint Center was created in 2005 through the merger of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, and the Silk Road Studies Program, at the Stockholm-based Institute for Security and Development Policy.

The Turkey Initiative
The Joint Center launched a Turkey Initiative in 2006 in order to improve understand of Turkish domestic and foreign affairs in Europe and the United States.

To Subscribe:
To subscribe to the Turkey Analyst email announcements, please contact Martina Klimesova with an email containing "subscribe Turkey Analyst" in the subject line.