According to the research of The Freedom of House Organization Turkey was still one of the nations that are considered partly free in 2009. Partly free countries are characterized by some restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. Limited freedom and severe violation of human rights has been an issue in for decades in Turkey.
However the nation felt that secularism was guarded very well by the military until recent years.
Why has the idea of guarding secularism mattered so much to a majorly Muslim nation?
Partly, because it was Ataturk’s legacy. He is the founder of modern Turkey. His vision helped create a democracy. Turkish women were granted voting rights long before French or Italian ladies. (Turkish ladies gained the right to elect and be elected in 1930, French ladies gained the right to vote in 1944) Drifting away from religious ideas seemed absolutely necessary at the time, as there is no example of an Islamic democratic state in the world.
The above map clearly shows that to this day most Islamic states are not free or at best partly free. *In Iran Mr. Moussavi who is the leader of the opposing political party is being oppressed. The people of Iran love him, but that does not change the fact that, the ones in power dare seize the computers, of a person who is running to be elected, to be the future leader of the nation. Now if they can push, even him around, the regular folk’s suffering is very clear. **The world is trying to save Sakineh’s life, who was under threat of being stoned to death. Meanwhile another couple has been stoned to death for being in love, in Afghanistan just like that.
***Dubai tries to create a more modern image, yet only a year ago a British woman was charged by the crime of having unmarried sex. The woman was in fact raped and pressed charges for her abuser to be arrested. Instead of arresting the abuser, they arrested her.
How is all this relevant?
The idea of an Islamic ruling creates panic among secular people in Turkey. The feared threat is about turning into one of the not free states.
****In the meantime EU applauds the result of a recent referendum, as a victory of democracy. There is a great amount of confusion of concepts among Turks. Secular people were mostly against the change of constitution; for fear that the government will lead the country towards a dictatorship.
*******“Turkey has undergone big changes since the A.K.P., an Islamic-rooted party, took power in 2002. It has introduced economic and political changes aimed at joining the European Union, and there have been big shifts in foreign policy.”
The below study about Muslim states was prepared in 2001 and Turkey was not even part of it. In 2002 AKP a party that is known for its religious roots has been elected and the outlook of Turkey has changed ever since.
*****Arab and Muslim states can be broadly grouped under three categories, according to their degree of democratization and respect for human rights:
- One-party dictatorships: Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Tunisia, Afghanistan.
- Multi-party regimes: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Algeria, Kuwait, Palestinian Authority.
- Traditional Islamic regimes: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, UAE and (non-Arab) Iran as well as Pakistan.
The first group is characterized by severe limitations on personal freedoms, a strict control of the media, and strong repression of all dissidence.
The second group allows a limited degree of parliamentarianism, some freedom of speech and organization, but with clear, and often harsh, limits set to criticism through the use of strong police and security services.
The third group is based on traditional Islamic values and concepts of government with some tokenism designed to present a more modern face. There ensue different approaches to the rights of women and minorities that do not always meet with globally-accepted norms.
As can be seen in the above study Islamic states tend to have oppressive regimes, and it is the degree of oppression that might vary but there is no example of complete freedom among these nations.
Why does the EU think that this election was a victory towards democracy?
The referendum package had clauses that enable the trial of military forces which was not possible before. That was antidemocratic of course and changing that is surely a victory.
Where is the twist? Why are secular Turks against such change?
They are not against this change. The referendum has put the people in a position where they had to say either ye s or no to a whole package. Affirmative action for women, affirmative action for disabled people, fewer restrictions on travel were some of the freeing ingredients that nobody felt a reason to oppose. However the change of judiciary system was also part of the packet and many secular people do not trust the existing ruling party for not abusing that change.
Why are the secular people so paranoid?
As described in detail above there is no example of a completely free Islamic state in the world and the ruling party does not deny its Islamic roots.
- The Prime Minister has openly threatened those who oppose him or those who dare say no.
- That does not sound at all democratic and makes everyone feel terribly uneasy.
*******“At one stage during the referendum campaign, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s governing Justice and Development Party, or A.K.P., threatened to get rid of Tusiad if it did not side with his party.
Mr. Erdogan had called the referendum to end the influence of the military in politics, overhaul the judiciary and strengthen individual rights. But the threats to Tusiad bolstered the opposition’s fears that in reality, Mr. Erdogan was trying to exert control over influential organizations.”
How is it possible that they keep getting elected in spite of the threatening attitude?
Now this is a key question on everyone’s mind lately.
The fact of the matter that seems to be somehow missed by the secular people is that Turkey has been, a partly free nation for much longer than the presence of the ruling party. Sadly Turkey is known for breaching, three of the Top 6 The Most Severe Human Rights Violations around the World
******Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
These infringements have also been signaled in Angola, Argentina, US, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Peru, Congo, Dominican Republic, South Africa, Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, Vietnam and other countries.
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Slavery has been also signaled in Albania, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Myanmar, Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Georgia, Kirghistan, Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and other countries.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.Infringement of the freedom of speech and media, and killed/attacked journalists have been also signaled in Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Kenya, Sudan, Panama, Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, Iran, Pakistan, Tunisia, Vietnam, China …
Now the change in the constitution enables the people to finally go after the ones that have subjected them to torture and all forms of inhuman, degrading treatment of punishment. That is also something the EU supports. At the same time freedom of expression is still very thin. People of Anatolia and the Black sea area have mainly supported the change in the constitution and have given the Prime Minister a vote of confidence while doing so.
Are these people rooting for the formation of an Islamic state?
Not necessarily!
The supposedly simple folk support the leading party because conspiracies of future threat on freedom do not so much affect them given that oppression has already been present in their life for decades. The last eight years has not made them feel more oppressed than earlier. The ruling party promises hope towards the future though.
The opposing parties however are basing their campaigns mainly on badmouthing the ruling party. Trying to scare the nation from a dark future by basically saying
“Your freedom is under major threat, if you do not choose me, your future is doomed.”
No promise other than that they will match the ruling party’s offers of change.
Nobody wants a whining leader!
People want hope. The embracement of the world towards Obama’s signature phrase “Yes we can” is a clear example to that. Secular parties have gotten away with their failure in implementing better human rights conditions for so long that it still does not seem to occur to them, that they need to assure positive change, as opposed expecting people to choose them because they will protect Turkey from becoming Iran.
The opposing parties “me too” attitude in reforms have not really helped them get a vote of confidence so far. In the business world, the market leader presents an innovation, the rest follows. Being the introducer of the innovations reassures a market leader’s position, until tackled by anyone who does not say “me too” but says “I have a better proposition.”
To wrap things up:
- Given that there is no completely free Islamic state in the world, secular people of Turkey have a point feeling threatened.
- Given that the Prime Minister has no problem openly threatening those who do not support him, while trying to create a presidential system that gives him absolute power, secular people have a point for fearing that this is a signal of future dictatorship, mainly because it can widely be seen among Islamic states.
- Given that more humane laws are implemented, the EU has a point supporting the change in Turkey.
- Given that they have been very much oppressed already, those who support the ruling party have a point, not feeling under threat of something that already exists and not perceiving the ones as saviors, as they did not do anything to bring positive change in this area when they were in charge.
So what will happen next?
Is Turkey going to become like Iran because the military is not strong enough to prevent it?
Are the secular people going to be threatened, oppressed, and completely pushed aside?
Not necessarily!
42% of the nation rejected the idea of change. The 58 % who accepted do not necessarily have Islamic ideas.
*******“ The governing party, which won 58 percent of the vote, acknowledged that the referendum was a test of its popularity before a general election next year. But analysts say it was also about something much more fundamental. “The referendum was about the different cultural values held by the conservatives and the secularists,” said Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, director of the Ankara office of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “It was about the future identity of the country.”
People will have to start accepting that democracy is meant to unify a nation. At the same time it equalizes everyone, as everyone gets only one vote. The idea that commoners can not make their decisions because they would be misled by the ruling party is an argument that can be heard a lot among Turks. The absurdness is that this is a completely anti-democratic view. The ruling party talks to the whole nation and found away to get enough people to hear them, enough people to trust and support them. The opposing party had the same opportunity, yet did not manage to influence enough people.
From an election procedure, perspective this is a functioning democracy. Every election multiple parties are in the race. The opposing parties should stop acting like some kind of victim and start acting like true leaders, bringing hope and promise to those who support them. The days of military action are over and that is not a bad thing.
The opposing party’s job to promote innovative change thereby tackle the existing leader’s position is not so difficult in a country that needs so much change.
Freedom of speech, economical reforms, sense of freedom and security, more rights and better representation of religious and ethnical minorities…are some of the basic needs that come to mind…
The one who convinces masses, that this change will arrive through their reforms would get great support. Especially by the media I suppose, as they suffer a great deal from lack of freedom of speech.
So when 42% of a nation is so keen on secularism and the rest is mostly impartial to the idea, secular Turkey can be guarded without the help of military force, but by the people. Secular leaders need to stop scaring people about the leading party but start acting in charge the way a true leader would be, showing that there is an advantage to secular values, promising the implementation of better life quality for everyone including the simple villagers, by laying out well thought plans for a better future.
Who knows Turkey might come out if this polarization with better human rights conditions as each party will have to promise to improve the quality of life to be elected, and given their position now, the only way for the secular parties to gain momentum is through better promises.
Follow me on Twitter@banugokyar
Sources:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/MOF09.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/opinion/17fri3.html?scp=2&sq=&st=nyt
*http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/world/middleeast/17iran.html?ref=middleeast
**http://shakti108.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/be-careful-never-to-hurt-a-human-heart/
***http://shakti108.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/if-life-is-given-by-god-should-it-not-only-be-taken-by-god/
****http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5999622,00.html
********http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/world/europe/16iht-letter.html?ref=turkey
