TURKEY HAS the capacity to become a key economic regional power, both as a member of the European Union and indeed in its own right, is still floundering in financial and political mires, almost entirely of its own making. Turkey appears to have developed a terrifying knack of doing precisely the wrong thing. When it was accosted by Armenian propagandists over an inter-communal butchery that took place around a century ago, it blustered and roared angrily, instead of trying to explain the true facts and their historical context. Had it admitted that the old Ottoman government had been at fault; had it pointed out that a large part of the anti-Armenian violence was led by their historic enemies, the Kurds, who also slaughtered thousands of Assyrians; had it presented a calm and reasoned response to long past events with which it had absolutely nothing to do, the Turkish government could have won widespread international sympathy.
But of course it did no such thing. It overreacted completely, just as its policemen regularly beat up and torture suspects; just as its army put down a recent prison riot by killing 32 inmates; just as the constitutional court has now banned the Islamic Virtue Party. Virtue, a direct successor to the Refah Party which had enjoyed widespread political success both at national and local government level, was, like its predecessor, deemed to be operating against the republic’s secular constitution of 1928.
There is no doubt that the hand of the military was once again behind this controversial move. Kemal Ataturk, the key figure behind Turkey’s break with its Ottoman past and the founding of the modern republic, ruled the new republic as a benign and generally revered dictator. Many were shocked at his crushing of the religious foundations, particularly the Mehvlani with their network of religious schools, but in Turkey’s headlong rush to become a modern European-style state, few dared to protest.
But even sophisticated and educated Turk’s did not fully share Ataturk’s vision. When he ordered that top members of his Republican People’s Party should set up an opposition party and contest democratic elections in the European model, there were protests that this was unnecessary. Some of the loudest objections came from former and serving army officers, who looked upon the whole business of democracy as a dangerous experiment. The views of the top brass are still pretty well unchanged. The military see themselves as the keepers of the Kemalist flame and have three times in the last sixty years intervened with coups, to restore order in the face of chaotic democratic conditions. Ordinary Turks were not sorry to see the military intervene last time in 1979, when armed thugs were bringing the country to the verge of civil war.
The generals cracked heads, imprisoned thousands and two years later, as they had twice before, marched back to their barracks. But it is clear now that their Kemalist vision is flawed. Turkey cannot expect to be taken seriously by Europe while it is a semi-democracy, with the military pulling the strings behind the scenes. The irony is that had Ataturk been alive today he would probably not have agreed with the current application of Kemalist principles, when they are being used to smother the development of a truly pluralist democratic society. Many ordinary Turks have despaired of the ability of established political parties to deliver economic and social stability. By backing first Refah and then the Virtue Party, a significant number of them was voting for a more decent, honest and humane political approach. By bringing about the banning of the Virtue, the generals are demonstrating their lack of understanding of Ataturk’s core vision of a modernized Turkey. The Islamic political movement has provided a peaceful platform for voter protest. Just because Turkey’s top brass object to their views is no reason to have their political party banned. This is dangerous and short-sighted political immaturity.
