Anwar Ibrahim, writing in The Washington Post recently, makes a very compelling argument about the upcoming Turkish elections. Although the situation is often painted as a conflict between Islamism and secularism, this characterization is misleading. Instead, Ibrahim argues, the elections are a struggle “between the forces of freedom and democracy on the one hand and authoritarianism on the other.”
The outcome will decide whether Turkey continues down the modernizing path it was set on some five years ago by the government of the ruling Justice and Development Party or backtracks onto the path where might is right and power is achieved through the barrel of a gun. Will there be a resolution to forge a new consensus between state and citizen that is at ease with Turkey’s Muslim heritage and its secular political culture, or will the forces of the military usurp the people’s right to choose their government and undermine the government’s mandate to serve the people?
Ibrahim’s analysis hits the nail on the head. The Turkish elections are more about determining the direction of the country’s fragile democracy than anything else. For those who aren’t familiar with Turkey, the Justice and Development Party (or the “AKP”) is the Islamist party that has led the country since 2002. The party has shown itself to be quite moderate, pursuing closer ties with Europe as well as conservative, but not particularly radical, domestic policies.
Secular groups, however, with the support of the military, have threatened a coup if the AKP wins in the upcoming July 22nd parliamentary elections. This is no idle threat. The Turkish military, which views itself as the protector of Ataturk’s policy of secularism, has a long history of such interventions. Two choices have emerged for Turkey: Should a moderate Islamist party, supported by a plurality of the Turkish people, be allowed to rule? Or should secular groups, backed by an interventionist military, have the right to intervene to ensure the continued secular nature of Turkish society and government?
The answer should be clear. Inclusive democracy, not a tyranny of the minority, is the right course for Turkey. Bizarrely enough, the Bush administration seems to have chosen the other option. Rather than calling on the Turkish military to respect the outcome of the election, or encouraging the AKP and other Islamist parties to continue playing a peaceful part in the country’s political process, administration officials have stayed silent, tacitly endorsing the possibility of a coup.
Howard Eissenstat, in a brilliant editorial in The Daily Star, points out that supporting democracy in Turkey should be a no-brainer:
At first glance, it seems hard to fathom the logic of recent American policy in Turkey. Not for the first time, the United States has chosen to back anti-democratic forces against an elected and popular government. This time around, however, the choice seems at odds with both America’s narrow strategic interests and its broader ideals.
On one side is a popularly elected government deeply committed to increased integration with the European Union and the liberal political reforms that this entails; that has shown remarkable – even unprecedented – successes in economic reform; that has shown a willingness to reach out to Kurdish moderates as it fights militants of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) in the southeast and Kurdish terrorism in the cities; and that has demonstrated a clear understanding of political realities and American strategic concerns as it has lobbied for more direct action against the PKK in northern Iraq.
On the other side is a military establishment that seems progressively more volatile. It is a military establishment that has long-since given up on political reform and, indeed, seems to have largely concluded that the promise of EU membership is merely a clever ruse by Turkey’s enemies to weaken the military’s hold on power and perhaps to destroy the country entirely. It is a military establishment that reacts to criticism with threats, veiled and unveiled, hinting at the possibility at a military coup and that charges journalists who have the temerity to investigate corruption and misuse of power.
Providing tacit support for the Turkish military is a strange policy. A moderate Islamist party participates in democratic elections in the Middle East, pursues closer ties with the West, and the Bush administration refuses to give its blessing? What gives? Eissenstat, in answer to this question, goes on to explain why American officials have rejected Islamist rule in Turkey:
The most important factor however, is that many in the US government apparently cannot bring themselves to trust a government with Islamist roots, even when that Islamism is self-consciously and consistently framed in the context of a democratic and secular state.
The costs of this policy are diverse and far-reaching. Perversely, America finds itself shunning a version of political Islam that it has often argued in favor of elsewhere: a model that emphasizes the liberal and tolerant traditions within Islam and does not see the divide between East and West as significant or even particularly relevant.
In taking such a position, Washington finds itself effectively supporting undemocratic and retrograde elements within Turkey against a popular and largely successful government… As Eissenstat alludes to, these elections are a tremendous opportunity for the Bush administration to show Islamist groups the benefits of rejecting violence and engaging peacefully in the political process. It’s also a chance to encourage the growth of nonviolent, pro-Western, moderate Islam. Unfortunately, however, the Bush administration seems blind to these possibilities.