I have been following up on the comments of European and American columnists on many events happening in Turkey for the last few years. As far as I understand, everyone in the “west” is insistent on making the same mistake over and over again. In principle, I do not hold anything against orientalism; however, like everything else, “too much” of it harms the depth of the perception. The mistake I am writing about now is that every non-Turkish, typically western opinion on Turkey revolves around religion vs. democracy. They are right in some aspects, but most of the comments lack depth in knowledge and interpretation. I will take the liberty of differentiating between an Islamic state and a Muslim state for now. As much as I do not like the expression “Muslim state” either, this will help me explain some of the misunderstood issues.
In my definition, an Islamic state is a state ruled by some sort of Sharia law, and a Muslim state is a state having a majority as Muslims in population. For now, I am not making any other distinctions, nor am I including any other factors. Again, as much as I do not like the expression “Muslim state” per se, with this distinction, I can say that Turkey is a Muslim state, and not an Islamic one. The majority of its citizens are Muslims, but it is not ruled by some sort of Sharia law. Considering the standards of interpretation in international relations and political science, that Turkey has Muslims as the majority should have some significance, but this does not necessarily require interpretation of every issue under the scope of secularism vs. religious inclinations. In fact, interpreting the issues regarding the ruling political party in terms of religion prevents most of us from focusing on the real problem: authoritarianism. The problems in politics or the public sphere might have some connection to the religious inclinations of the ruling political party in terms of justification and interpretation of concepts; however, this aspect is only secondary to the real problem.
The root of the problem, in my opinion, is the “official history” taught in schools starting from the earliest stages of public education in Turkey. Contrary to popular beliefs, we are still living under the shadow of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire has a really strong resemblance to what is being tried in Turkey nowadays. According to the “official” history, the Ottoman Empire was strong, wise, and promoted tolerance in places it “conquered.” Going back to the year (1453) Constantinople was under siege by the Ottoman Empire would enlighten most of us in current matters. After a series of long and harsh battles, the Ottoman Empire took Constantinople, what is known as Istanbul now. Most Turks are proud of this, and they are very keen on telling everyone about the things that happened later. According to the people that take pride in this “achievement”, the Ottoman Empire “has let” the Christians living in the area to pursue with their religious and cultural activities, showing a great example of “tolerance” for different beliefs.* According to the same kinds of people, the Ottoman Empire was a beacon of mutual trust, tolerance and peace around the world. It is very easy to explain why it is not true, but it is not under the scope of this article. Let us go into the wording.
People who are proud of their heritage do not say “nothing was done against Christians after Constantinople became Istanbul as we know it.” They say “the Empire let them pursue their lives” and the Empire was very “tolerant” in the matters about different beliefs. This holds the assumption that “the Ottoman Empire could have massacred the Christians and that would be normal, but it chose not to do so, sparing their lives which were entirely in the Empire’s hands”, or “being intolerant could be normal, but the Empire chose not to use the ultimate power in its hands”. This empire, this relic of the terrible history that we have has been used to justify many things in our recent history. In deed, it is an ultimately just, ultimately wise, ultimately strong and right father figure, who has the power to do everything, who would be right to do everything in its power, but chooses not to do it, just because he is forgiving, tolerant, and has people’s destiny in his hands. I am closer to my thirties than my twenties, and I have yet to hear any “bragging” from neo-Ottomanists that does not include implications of power and tolerance, that is, a definition of tolerance that assumes intolerance would be the normal thing to hold, and the Empire blessed everyone with its justness and wisdom by “choosing” tolerance.
Moreover, what is happening nowadays in Turkey is not separately inclined. Including the founder of the country Atatürk, the late former PM of Turkey Menderes, and the late former president of Turkey Özal, everyone in politics has been related to a father figure whether it would be openly or unconsciously. Even Demirel, who has served as both the PM and the President of the country for some time has been known as “the Father” (more like “the Godfather”). Related to this issue, there is a habit of politicians to address the citizens as “sen” (informal “you”, like the French word “tu”), while the citizen addresses the politician as “siz” (formal “you”, like the French word “vous”). Even emotional tendencies show us that politicians are seen as supreme rulers instead of public servants. Most of the time, politicians and “so-called” leaders are held more important than political parties or movements, and ideologies, giving more credit to the person who represents the father figure. For the ruling political party’s election campaigns regarding the upcoming local elections, the song “Dombra” by the singer Arslanbek Sultanbekov was “openly stolen” and has been used in a format where most of its lyrics where changed with “Recep Tayyip Erdoğan”. Imagine a song in which more than half of the lyrics is the name of the PM of the country. Reinforcing the strongest perception in political understanding, this neo-Ottomanist view is trying to establish Erdoğan as the new father figure.
I will include justifications for my comment in the previous paragraph after explaining how Erdoğan “looks” similar to the understanding of the Ottoman Empire in modern Turkey. Technically and practically, the three estates, legislative, judiciary and executive powers are now under control of His Royal Highness Erdoğan with the latest changes in legislation and regulations. He holds the greatest power in the country by himself. Even the most peaceful criticisms are faced with comments like “if he were a dictator, you wouldn’t be able to say that”. So, he single-handedly controls every little thing, and we are living our most basic humanist, social, civil and political rights just because he “chose to let us”. The alcohol regulation (that requires a ban on selling alcoholic beverages – in form of retail – after 10 pm) is a great example. He would not be able to upset the people who like to drink alcoholic beverages if the government had completely banned any usage of alcohol as much as the situation now. As he follows up on every single, every little thing we think is fun or nice, he does not “choose” to ban everything. He offers us his blessings about a thing he “could have completely banned if he wanted so”. We are expected to be respectful towards him, because he is a “devlet büyüğü” (we can explain this phrase as “our respectable elder ruling the state”). We are also expected to be thankful to him, because he has about half of the votes, and automatically holds the right to be a dictator, but he does not choose to be a dictator. We, as “humans”, have human rights that we hold and deserve since the beginning of our lives; however, we “have to” be thankful that Erdoğan does not take away these rights, because he would be right to take them away, as he received half of the votes in the latest election. This “father figure” approach also holds for the regulations about the internet recently. The state is thought to be responsible in protecting the citizens. I would agree with such a comment if I was not living in Turkey. The state is currently protecting me, a 26-year-old adult, from pornographic material, by blocking access to every single pornographic website that it could find under the sun. The state has always been a father figure in Turkey, even supported by the fact that Turkish people call the land “mother-land”, and the state “devlet baba” (the state, our father). Now the ruling party, in the form of the “government” has become “the state”, and Erdoğan has become the government.
Furthermore, the head-consultant of the prime minister, who is definitely crazy in the medical sense called the PM “his ancestor” recently. Every single person who is “still” siding with the government hold Erdoğan dear so much that, they associate their “viwes’ decency” with the trustworthiness of the government. There are even some people who claim “Erdoğan is the only person in the world they would support if they caught him with their wives”, and this is, unfortunately, an actual, a direct quote. A few months ago, a representative of the ruling party’s women’s branch stated that “they are connected to Erdoğan with an ideological marriage.” Another said that “even touching Erdoğan should be considered prayer”. Along with becoming a “practical god”, Erdoğan is definitely a “father figure” that is to be respected, not to be investigated into, and that could decide every single thing in the country, occasionally “letting us be” as he sees fit.
Hence, the problem with Turkish politics is not religion, at least not primarily. Authoritarianism is a closer threat, and it has been achieved in many ways. We do not have to approach everything about Turkey in terms of religion, just because it is an example of a country with a Muslim majority in population but is not ruled by Sharia law. I agree with the fact that Turkey is unique in terms of such an approach, but the western approach recently has been “too easy”. Approaching issues in Turkey in terms of religion is easy and almost everyone could do this; however, it does not solve anything, nor does it explain many things that would be useful in understanding the affairs in the country.
* Except that the Ottoman Empire had the habit of converting the largest temple in the places they “conquered” into a mosque, which, in this case is Hagia Sophia, still the most beautiful thing ever constructed in these lands, after one thousand years.
Leave a Reply