Advertisement

On Radio 4 Now

Any Questions?

13:10 - 14:00

Eddie Mair chairs the topical debate from Stratford-upon-Avon.

Coming up at: 14:00

Any Answers?

View full schedule

« Previous | Main | Next »

Crisis in Turkey?

Post categories:

Robin Lustig | 10:15 UK time, Friday, 4 July 2008

Suppose I gave you a choice: you can live either in a secular state, in which religion and politics are kept strictly apart, or you can live in a democracy. But you can't have both - so which would you choose?

Suppose you've had a democratic election. The party that won has traditions rooted in religion - and although it denies any intention of allowing its religious beliefs to impinge on its policies, you're not convinced. Worse than that ... you strongly suspect that its leaders do intend to lull you into a false sense of security and then turn your country, step by step, into a fundamentalist theocracy.

Would you be justified in stopping them, by any means necessary, up to and including military force? After all, your country was founded on secular principles: are they not more important, enshrined as they are in the constitution, than the results of an imperfect electoral process?

Yes, I know I've over-simplified, but these are the questions at the heart of the deepening crisis in Turkey. And how they are resolved could have an immense impact on Europe's relations with its neighbour to the east over the coming decade.

Remember, Turkey wants to join the EU (it already belongs to NATO). But remember also that four times in the past 50 years, the army has stepped in to "protect" the country's secular traditions. Just this week, two senior retired generals were arrested in connection with allegations of a coup plot.

And the ruling AK party is facing a legal challenge to its very existence from the country's chief prosecutor, who wants to ban 71 of its most senior figures from public life for five years, on the grounds that there is a "real and present danger" of it creating an Islamic state. Among the people he wants to ban just happen to be the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the President, Abdullah Gul, whose wife created a furore last year because she prefers to appear in public with her hair covered by a hijab.

So here's some background for you: when Turkey arose from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War, its first president, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, insisted that it must be a secular republic. (Article 2 of the constitution says: "The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law.") Kemalism has become a quasi-religion, a secular faith embraced for decades by the country's intellectual, nationalist and military elite.

But what happens to the democracy bit of the constitution if voters choose to back a party that is rooted in Islamism? The AK party, which has won the last two elections, owes its success in large part to support from Turkey's emerging rural middle class - and it is challenging the long-established political dominance of the urban, secular, liberal elite.

So this isn't just an argument about Islam in politics. It's also a good, old-fashioned power struggle between a deeply entrenched political elite and a new breed of politicians, many of whom are what we would call "modern" Muslims.

An example: when I went to meet an AKP mayor just outside Ankara last year, I was intrigued to find that the two young women working in his outer office both wore their hair uncovered. So did a newly-elected female AKP MP whom I interviewed the day after the election. So don't imagine that AKP women look as if they come from Iran. They don't.

But neither should you under-estimate the importance of the debate now under way in Turkey. The old cliché has it that the country has always stood at a cross-roads between Europe and Asia, and between Christianity and Islam. It now stands at a political cross-roads too.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 2:18pm on 04 Jul 2008, FrogiveFaust wrote:

    Secular laws and practices can be debated, altered and changed because they are recognized as being man made.

    Religious law on the other hand, is an entirely different kettle of fish. When you have people who believe that religious law is the will of god and that man has no right to question it, religion in any form of government lacks robustness and the ability to adapt.

    New situations and new questions are raised daily, using religion to overcome them can help, but in a few instances it's not equipped (due to its age) to deal with them all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 2:24pm on 04 Jul 2008, FrogiveFaust wrote:

    Oh and just to add, I’d just like to thank you for the question you put forward.

    As a secularist and at the same time someone who is highly appreciative towards the nobility of democracy, it is certainly a personal paradox.

    Ultimately however I’d have to go for a democracy, it is important that the people’s choice remains that deciding factor.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 3:22pm on 04 Jul 2008, Dennis wrote:

    Turkey has been in crisis regarding its identity for the past 75 years...

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 8:02pm on 04 Jul 2008, anatheistani wrote:

    Concerning this hypothetical question, neither can exist.
    In a secular state, those in politics will still be influenced by their religious background and conscience. Conversely those in a democracy already are. Example being; A Jew in the USA Congress would not be unbiased toward Israel on voting.
    As is said - Beware the enemy within.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 00:10am on 06 Jul 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    People get the government they deserve. If theocracy violates the constitution and the courts rule laws trying to create a theocracy unconstitutional, then the population has the power to to vote for people to amend the Constitution. But they will be sorry if they do. Once Theocracy establishes itself, it is very hard to get rid of. Basically they will be throwing their democracy away. That's what the Germans did under the Nazis. One man, one vote, one time. They can elect a government that will ultimately make them into Iran...or a Turkish Taleban like society.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 1:45pm on 31 Jul 2008, ssmmaadd wrote:

    Yes admittantly over-simplified views. If you cannot have black must choose white.
    Is this hoe democracy work?
    You can have religion and secularity together, and this would be called democracy -actually...
    Unfortunately elections all over the world can only be supposed democratic nowadays...
    Your experience of meeting an AKP mayor and the AKP women who don't look like they come from Iran can only be valid if you've been to Iran and experienced meeting Iranian women.
    The debate in Turkey cooked outside of Turkey.
    A simple historical repetition unfortunately.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

Explore the BBC

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.