Turkey Analyst,
vol. 3 no. 14
30 August 2010

WHAT THE COLUMNISTS SAY

The upcoming referendum on September 12 on the constitutional amendments package, the Kurdish issue and the relegation of the military to a subordinate position have been the topics of the debate in Turkey during the summer. Turkey remains deeply polarized; the opposition distrusts the intentions of the AKP government, accusing it of seeking to introduce an authoritarian regime. The supporters of the government level a similar accusation against the opposition, and maintain that the adoption of the constitutional amendments will be a prelude to a comprehensive political liberalization.

ÇALIŞLAR:  GROWTH AND TENSION ARE TWO SIDES TO THE SAME COIN
Oral Çalışlar in Radikal writes that no single template or paradigm can account for the current state of Turkey. You can provide diametrically opposed pictures of what is happening in Turkey.  On the one hand, the country is rapidly developing and prospering. Yet on the other hand, the tensions in society continue to grow as well. In fact growth and tension are two sides to the same coin. As the country experiences economic growth, different identities and aspirations come to the fore, with ensuing tensions. Kurds, Alevis, the pious, Christians, Jews, the youth, women, homosexuals, and different societal strata demand that oppression is lifted. They demand that their right to express their identities is duly respected. The constitution that was bequeathed by the military junta in the 1980s was designed in the very different world of the Cold War, with the purpose of protecting the country against the threat of communism. The incompatibility of a society that has become a part of the global economy, actively engaged with the rest of the world, and an authoritarian constitutional order is self-evident.

ŞAHİN:  THE ABUSE OF HISTORY
Haluk Şahin in Radikal observes that the symbolically charged choice of September 12 as the date of the upcoming referendum could not have been more advantageous for the governing AKP. That has offered the AKP the chance of turning the referendum into a vote for or against military meddling in politics, for or against the regime of military tutelage (as September 12 was the date when the military seized power in 1980). The impression that this is what the referendum is about has been further reinforced by the proposed amendment to the constitution which would make possible the trial of the perpetrators of the 1980 coup. In fact, that amendment was not included in the original proposal, but was inserted only after the CHP (the main opposition party) raised the issue. So now, the AKP has succeeded in creating the impression that those who are against the constitutional amendments are somehow in favor of military meddling in politics and defend the coup of 1980. It is almost as if the coup had been directed against the Islamic movement. In fact, it is worth remembering that the coup in 1980 had the left as its target, and that the Islamic movement actually benefited from it; the military regime promoted a Turkish-Islamic synthesis as a national ideology and cleared the obstacles in the way of the Islamists by emasculating the left and the nationalists.

GÜRSEL:  A VICTORY FOR THE AKP IN THE REFERENDUM WILL IMPEDE A RESOLUTION OF THE KURDISH PROBLEM
Kadri Gürsel in Milliyet predicts that Turkey sooner or later will have to bargain with the Kurds. The negotiations with the Kurds will not be about how Turkey is going to be partitioned, but will seek to ascertain the conditions of a new commonwealth of the Turks and the Kurds. In this respect, Turkey’s main advantage will be its soft power; Turkey will be attractive for the Kurds insomuch as it is capable of living up to modern standards of democracy and human rights in general. The introduction of a liberal and democratic constitution is crucial in this perspective. Unfortunately, Turkey is moving in the opposite direction under the rule of the AKP. And if the referendum on September 12 results in a victory for the government, then things will only get worse. Because in that case, the AKP and the religious brotherhoods will be able to reorganize the judiciary according to their ideological preferences; it will be an invitation for the institution of an authoritarian regime. A government that reveals its authoritarian inclinations in its treatment of those Turks that displease it will certainly not hesitate to subject Kurds to the same treatment. Indeed, it is already doing so.

MİROĞLU: THE PKK NEEDS TO HAVE FAITH IN POLITICS AND LAY DOWN ITS ARMS
Orhan Miroğlu, a Kurdish intellectual who writes in Taraf, urges the PKK to put an end to its armed struggle. There is no more reason left to continue the war that begun on August 15, 1984, when the PKK attacked the army outposts in Eruh and Şemdinli. Today, the PKK has established an influence over Kurdish society and politics that vastly exceeds its strength in arms. Turkey can no longer explain to the world why it fails to entice a guerilla movement – which has gone from pursuing an anti-colonial struggle to raising democratic demands that include the lifting of the ten percent threshold to the parliament and the release of imprisoned Kurdish politicians – to participate in democratic politics. Yet at the same time, the insistence of the PKK to try to steer a Kurdish society that has developed, become much more multifaceted, and indeed anxious, from the mountains, formulating demands like “democratic autonomy” in its name, is frankly nothing that stands to be understood by either the Turks or the Kurds of this country. Calling for “democratic autonomy” at this point amounts to formulating legitimate demands at the wrong time. It risks impairing the process of negotiations and dialogue. What matters now, above everything else, is that the guns are permanently silenced. What needs to be discussed will have to wait until after that moment. The PKK needs to have faith in the fact that the Kurdish issue has now come to rest firmly on political ground. After this point, the Kurds will never acquiesce to a solution that fails to address their demands, even if there was no PKK, and even if the American army were to occupy Diyarbakir.

KORU: THE MILITARY AND CHANGE
Fehmi Koru in Yeni Şafak notes that the installation ceremony of the new chief of the General staff once again occasioned the delivery of message-laid speeches by retiring generals and by those who assumed their new responsibilities. Why is that the military – that logically should be an institution that is open to change, as it has to closely follow the developments in modern technology – has chosen to think of the breathtaking changes that are taking place in Turkey, in parallel to global developments, as a threat that needs to be countered? Part of the answer to that question is supplied by those in the media who are known to be intimate with the military; they tell us that what imports are not the different personalities of the commanders, but the fact that the mentality of the military as an institution remains unchanged. If so, they are in for new disappointments in coming years. It is not so much an alleged defamation campaign that has caused the troubles of the armed forces; it is the inability to correctly read and understand the change that is taking place in the world and in Turkey that has impaired the military. Now it’s time to make good of the opportunities that are being offered by the evolution of mankind. Otherwise, every installation ceremony will turn into a wall of weeping.

© Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center, 2010. This article may be reprinted provided that the following sentence be included: "This article was first published in the Turkey Analyst (www.turkeyanalyst.org), a biweekly publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center".

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 bi-weekly, and includes topical analysis, as well asa summary of the Turkish media debate. It is edited and compiled under the supervision of Svante E. Cornell and Halil M. Karaveli.

The Turkey Analyst welcomes article submission. Please contact Halil M. Karaveli, Managing Editor.

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 understanding 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.