Perhaps surprisingly, and contrary to what some people
inside and outside Turkey would have you believe, local newspapers and TV
channels here are full of reports and comments criticising the government of
Tayyip Erdoğan for its handling of the Taksim Square protests and pretty much
everything else, from the actions of a 16th century Ottoman sultan,
to the civil war in neighbouring Syria. Maybe the writers are being secretly
thrown into prison, but you’d think their families might have got the news out
somehow. My Turkish colleagues at work are all alternately crying and laughing
over Youtube, Facebook and other social media postings, none of which have been
closed down by the government. Still, Western media seem convinced that
Turkey’s oppressed citizenry are rising against an autocratic dictator, along
the lines of Egypt’s Mubarak, Libya’s Gaddafi and Syria’s Assad. I’d like to
comment on two of these articles.
The first is an interview, entitled 'Turkish Artists Respond to the Wave of Protests Rocking their Country' which appeared in an online artmag Blouin Artinfo (thanks Margie). The italicised lines are direct quotes. My comments follow.
Taner Ceylan and his fellow artists are supporting the democratic protests against unwarranted police violence. What makes them especially democratic rather than just ordinary protests, I wonder?
“The result of the last ten
years has been a lack of respect for human rights, women’s rights, freedom of
expression, and freedom of speech,” Taner explained. I have seen no evidence of this. On
the contrary, I would say all these areas have seen considerable improvement in
the last ten years. Generals and other military officers who presided over
coups, killings and torture in the past have been brought to trial. Another
group who were planning a coup to oust Erdoğan’s democratically elected
government were caught and put on trial. It is now possible to discuss
openly issues surrounding Kurds, Alevis and other minority ethnic and religious
groups in a way that was forbidden when I first came to Turkey in the 1990s.
He [Ceylan] mentioned the
disproportionate number of journalists currently imprisoned in Turkey. I keep hearing this. Journalists is an emotive word in this
context. The Turkish mainstream media seem to publish criticism of the
government with impunity as far as I can see – though there are issues where
you need to be careful. Turks don’t like people slanging off MK Atatürk, the
founder of the republic, or siding too publicly with expatriate Armenian
pressure groups, for example. Incidentally, PM
Erdoğan himself, while
serving as mayor of Istanbul, spent four months in prison in 1999 after the
parliamentary Islamic party, of which he was a member, was banned by Turkey’s Constitutional
Court, and he spoke out about it.
Upper section of a Taner Ceylan painting. No prizes for guessing what the lower section shows. |
He said he and other artists
had received death threats as a result of the content of his work in recent
years. Well, you can’t really blame the government for
that. I received a death threat once myself, as a teacher back in New Zealand.
There are crazy people around in every country, I guess. Still, if you
deliberately set out, as an artist, to challenge people’s religious beliefs,
you can’t reasonably be shocked if you get the occasional extreme reaction. One
of Taner Bey’s paintings features a veiled Ottoman lady juxtaposed with the
work of French artist Gustav Courbet known as L’Origine du Monde. The interviewer coyly and somewhat
euphemistically describes the female figure in Courbet’s picture as naked from
the waist down. She certainly is! And no doubt Ceylan’s painting would upset
some people – but I have to assume that was the point of the exercise in the
first place.
“Cultural centers are being
closed and censored,” he added. “Big projects, such as mosques and bridges, are
being realized without asking citizens for input.” Ceylan said the government’s
decision to replace a park in Taksim Square with a replica of an Ottoman-era
army barracks was a breaking point for many citizens. In
fact I see new cultural centres springing up everywhere, along with commercial
and residential skyscrapers, shopping malls and, yes, mosques. There is a huge
building boom going on all over Turkey, not just in Istanbul. In addition,
there are major public transport projects completed, under construction or
planned, aimed at relieving Istanbul’s and Turkey’s notorious traffic problems.
The vast majority of ‘citizens’, I believe, are happy with these. Central and
local governments have been building, and are continuing to build, parks and recreation areas on a phenomenal
scale, providing free open-air fitness centres, cycle and running tracks,
picnic areas and sports facilities which are enormously popular. Should every
project, public and private, be opened for public debate? It seems to me there
is unrestricted opportunity for groups or individuals to express their opinions
– the Marmaray underground project,
for example, is years behind schedule because of the need to allow
archaeologists access to the excavations. See my previous post for a picture of
the Ottoman army barracks and a comment on the plans for Taksim Square.
The whole affair represents the
way in which the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has slowly strangled
all opposition while making sure to remain within democratic lines. Sounds impressive until you try to
figure out exactly what the sentence means.
As I often say, Turkey’s biggest problem is the lack of a credible and
effective opposition party to provide a legitimate voice for protest and
alternative proposals, without which a democracy cannot properly function. Once
again, however, it’s a little unfair to blame the democratically elected
government for that. Should they start up a puppet alternative party as Atatürk
himself did once or twice in his day? You’d think it was really the
responsibility of responsible, democratically minded citizens to do that for themselves,
given that, as far as I am aware, there is no prohibition on doing so.
The second article I would like to comment on was published
the other day in Foreign Policy Online,
entitled How Democratic Is Turkey?
Under the AKP and the charismatic
Erdogan, unprecedented numbers of Turks have become politically mobilized and
prosperous -- the Turkish economy tripled in size from 2002 to 2011, and 87
percent of Turks voted in the most recent parliamentary elections, compared
with 79 percent in the 2002 election that brought the AKP to power. Well, yes. So what seems to be the problem?
Yet this mobilization has not come
with a concomitant ability to contest politics. OK, I see. But whose fault is that? See above.
Replying
to criticism, Spokesmen and apologists
for the AKP offer a variety of explanations . . . from "it's the law"
and the "context is missing," to "it's purely fabricated."
These excuses falter under scrutiny and reveal the AKP's simplistic view of
democracy. They also look and sound much like the
self-serving justifications that deposed Arab potentates once used to
narrow the political field and institutionalize the power of their parties and
families. Once again, it sounds
good, but what does it actually mean? Why don’t AKP’s opponents get their act
together and organise a party capable of providing Turks with a genuine
alternative in parliamentary elections? There are plenty of issues of vital
interest to citizens that such a party could address. And what, pray, is the
relevance of deposed Arab
potentates to a popularly elected and successful political party?
Turkey's new alcohol law, which among
other things sets restrictions on alcohol sales after 10 p.m., curtails
advertising, and bans new liquor licenses from establishments near mosques and
schools, is another example of the AKP's majoritarian turn. I
don’t know about your country, but New Zealand certainly has restrictions on
alcohol advertising in newspapers and cinemas, and the sale of alcohol in
stores late at night. I seem to recall some restrictions in the UK on selling
alcohol on Sundays – no problem buying it from supermarkets etc on Fridays (or
Sundays) in Turkey. There are certainly restrictions on the consumption of
alcohol at large public gatherings in NZ and Australia. In Turkey there have
always been limits on licensed premises near mosques – and why not, one might
think? Schools too, for that matter. Majori-what?
Is that even a word? If so, what does it mean? Maybe the writer would prefer minoritarian
rule, as Turkey mostly had in the past.
Over the last decade the AKP has
built an informal, powerful, coalition of party-affiliated businessmen and
media outlets whose livelihoods depend on the political order that Erdogan is
constructing. Those who resist do so at their own risk. Resist what? At the risk of what?
Tell me Republicans don’t have such an informal coalition in the US, the
Conservatives in the UK, and the National Party in New Zealand. It seems to me
the AKP would be mad if they didn’t try to get business interests on their
side. And if they didn’t, it’s very likely those interests would tend to
coalesce of their own accord around a government as successful as this one (see
the statistics above). Besides, I have seen no evidence of anything in Turkey
resembling Silvio Berlusconi’s media empire in Italy, for example.
Turkey has essentially become
a one-party state. In this the
AKP has received help from Turkey's insipid opposition, which wallows in
Turkey's lost insularity and mourns the passing of the hard-line Kemalist elite
that had no particular commitment to democracy. Well, I think I dealt with this one earlier. However,
I would go further, and say that, if Turkey has become a one-party state
(whatever essentially means)
the blame can be laid almost entirely at the door of the opposition Republican
People’s Party and that hard-line
Kemalist elite who ruled the country with insipid coalitions and military
support before the appearance of AKP on the political scene in 2001.
The AKP and Prime Minister Erdogan
might have been elected with an increasing share of the popular vote over the
last decade, but the government's actions increasingly make it seem as if
Turkish democracy does not extend farther than the voting booth. What can you say to that? What
percentage of eligible voters turn out for elections in the United States? And
ask the ‘99%’ who occupied the parks last year what they think about
post-ballot box democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment