Democratic Islamism

It's hard for me to imagine anything more wrongheaded than Michael Rubin's on-again, off-again crusade against the Islamist AKP Party in Turkey. Obviously, not being a Muslim of any sort I have a hard time imagining myself backing an Islamist political party and would expect Rubin to feel the same way. But as a third-party observer of the Muslim world, it seems to me that things like the AKP are exactly what we should be hoping to see -- political mobilizations based around the appeal of Islam that nonetheless abide by democratic norms and don't see Islamist politics as entailing violent confrontations with the West. If America takes the attitude that only rigid, Attaturk-style secularism is an acceptable form of political organization, then this is precisely the sort of thing that drives the view that the United States is engaging in the global persecution of Muslims and Islam. Rubin, however, is having none of it:

What is most amazing is that the State Department has downplayed Turks' concern about the Islamist agenda. If there was any truth to Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried comparison of the AKP to a European Christian Democratic Party, Turks would not be rallying for democracy and secularism. Perhaps it is time for some introspection in Foggy Bottom and at the U.S. embassy in Ankara.

Rubin's right that the comparison to a contemporary Christian Democratic Party doesn't hold all that much water. Ironically, the correct comparison is to the Republican Party in the United States. This is a political party that draws much of its support from the political mobilization of Christian sentiment. The policies and rhetoric it employs to tap into Christian political mobilization are deeply controversial, are capable of prompting mass protests by more secular-minded people, and -- yes -- wind up with the party backing somewhat illiberal policies on various scores. All that said, the GOP is still obviously a participant in a democratic system of elections and governance. Dennis Hastert surrendered the Speaker's chair to Nancy Pelosi. And while the Republicans' deep ties to Christian political have tended to drive non-Christian voters in droves to the Democrats, the GOP does get some support from members of religious minority groups like Rubin himself.

Comments

Okay, there are mass demonstrations in Turkey against the AKP and for democracy, secularism, not forcing students to wear headscarfs, and the United States shouldn't take the demonstrator's side? I don't buy it.

I think we can be glad that the AKP is participating in politics and still unfriendly toward their policies, just the same as with the GOP. The AKP's agenda does seem pretty corrosive to those four freedoms FDR was always on about.

Posted by jbl | April 30, 2007 10:07 AM

The comment that the AKP is like the Republican party is just as silly as saying that the AKP is like a Christian Democratic party. But leave that aside. Matthew is engaging in quite a strawman argument here. He writes:

If America takes the attitude that only rigid, Attaturk-style secularism is an acceptable form of political organization, then this is precisely the sort of thing that drives the view that the United States is engaging in the global persecution of Muslims and Islam.

(emphasis added)

Is Rubin arguing that secularism it is the only acceptable form of political orgainzation? I don't see it. Rather, he is writing that it is the preferable form of political organization. Which seems to me to be perfectly reasonable.

Posted by Al | April 30, 2007 10:45 AM

Let's stay out of the internal politics of other democratic countries. Supporting one party over another will not necessarily help that preferred party--particularly when the US is as hated as Bush and the Republicans have made us.

On another point, I have met several Republicans who are not of Turkish ethnicity, so Matt's point is way off the mark there.

Posted by blatherskite | April 30, 2007 10:52 AM

I'm no expert on Turkish politics, but I think jbl has the details wrong. The AKP is not, to my knowledge, attempting to force students to wear headscarves. They are attempting to overturn a BAN on wearing headscarves in schools and public buildings.

Now, granted, there are plenty of fundamentalists who will force their wives and daughters to wear headscarves in the absence of state-enforced secularism, but that's not quite the same thing.

I'm torn on this issue. My heart goes out to secular Turks who are fighting to preserve the modern nation they built against the encroachment of medieval attitudes. At the same time, though, Matt is correct that the AKP is a realistic model for democratic Islamism and it would be a mistake for the US to fight against it openly.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 30, 2007 10:55 AM

There's nothing wrong with rooting for the secular forces (I root for them in America too). But that doesn't mean the US Government ought to intervene in some way to help the secular party or to hurt the Islamic one.

The fundamental, mistaken assumption underlying all this is that as the world's sole superpower, there's nothing wrong with us taking sides in each and every country's internal affairs. Even setting aside the moral objection, an objection so well-founded that our own laws prohibit foreign countries from engaging in exactly this sort of meddling regarding U.S. internal affairs, any intelligent person should realize that when less than 25% of Turkey views the U.S. favorably, anything we do to aid the secular forces is going to be counterproductive.

Not to mention, this is yet another case where being anti-Islamism forces us to be anti-democracy too. My sympathies are certainly with the protestors, but they're anti-democratic protestors in this case. Which makes the message we would send by supporting them even worse.

Posted by Steve | April 30, 2007 11:03 AM

Al, MY does not say that Rubin is specifically advocating that view. He is only saying that it would be improper for America to have its Turkey-policy dictated by that view, with Rubin's views on the AKP being so pessimistic that they are in fact close to those who suggest that only Kemalism is acceptable.
Also in a previous article, Rubin criticized the AKP for not having any MPs from a specific religious minority. How unlike the Republican Party, with whom American minorities are thoroughly integrated!

Posted by Trolly McTroll | April 30, 2007 11:20 AM

That's nobody's business but the Turks'.

Posted by Linus | April 30, 2007 11:34 AM

"Somewhat illiberal policies," is it now? Well, whooptidoo, aren't we civil over at Atlawntic these days!

Posted by SqueakyRat | April 30, 2007 11:52 AM

before people go tossing around terms like "medieval", let's recognize that in a country of 70 million, which is %98 Muslim, "secular" and "democratic" are going to be opposite ideals. Which do you prefer? IMO, AKP is a nice overlap. AK is no Muslim Brotehrhood, they are not the Taliban guys. They are serious about reform and EU, etc. They are fine with miniskirts so long as you don't mind their headscarves.

Let's also recognize that 300,000 is hardly a mass protest, in that nation of 70 million. It's the collegekids born to the westernized elite (same as US protesters really) who hardly represent the villagers of Diyarbakir.

Posted by PK again | April 30, 2007 11:58 AM

300,000 isn't a mass protest? If over a million people took to the streets in the US, I'd sure consider that a mass protest.

Posted by Steve | April 30, 2007 11:59 AM

Turkish politics is tricky to talk about, partly because the so-called left-right divide is really between some militaristic, statist secularists (the Kemalist "left") and more laissez-faire, open religious element. The AKP of course represents the latter.

In contrast to the Kemalist CHP, and the extreme nationalist parties which attach themselves to both ends of the "spectrum", the AKP, continuing in a line of development for Turgut Ozal in the 80s, is presiding over a kind of "re-democratization" of Turkish politics. The military establishment is weakening, more people are voting, the economy is opening up, public life is maturing. The AKP is doing a great job managing Turkey.

I don't see the AKP as an irresponsible Islamist party. I think the comparison with the Republicans is apt, but also with the Christian Democratts, since they are sort of technocrats. They are not forcing anyone to wear headscarves, they are only opposed to Ataturk's ban on wearing headscarves in public buildings, universities, etc... a ban that I think is needlessly antagonistic to religious sensibilities. The wall between religion and public life is not in danger of eroding, I think. I agree with MY: Rubin should be loving the AKP. His hatred of it is evidence of the visceral anti-Islam that is SO incredibly prevalent among pundits these days.

With that said, were I a Turk I would vote for the CHP, because I am a secularist and Ataturk's achievement should be preserved. But I wish the CHP would modernize like the AKP clearly has. I think the demonstrations in Ankara yesterday and in Istanbul a little while ago are a great sign of new life and vigor from the secularist camp, something much needed. If the US (which, I should add, has far fewer protections in favor of secular public life than Turkey currently does. Try forbidding a cross necklace or church T-shirt in a university classroom here.) were to see that kind of public display each time Roe vs Wade gets attacked, things may be different here.

Posted by CG | April 30, 2007 12:15 PM

300,000 is definitely a mass protest, i read an AP article saying the protesters wanted new elections, so at least some of them think they have widespread appeal.

Posted by ChrisB | April 30, 2007 12:22 PM

It should also be mentioned that bin Laden ties the beginning of the umma's modern humiliation to Attaturk's rise in Turkey and Kemalism, with its required secularism. Having a choice between these two - able to be deeply religious, to be politcally involved based on religious convictions and to still respect the rules and mores of a secular liberal democracy - is definitely needed. In some ways, the AKP has been one of the more liberal parties in the history of the modern Turkey.

Al, why don't you find the comparison to the Republican Party applicable? Is it because the AKP haven't lost a city to a hurrican yet?

Posted by Reality Man | April 30, 2007 1:00 PM

Hey, look at this in perspective. The first step after legalizing the wearing of headscarves in public capacities is a campaign of intimidation and terror against secular women, and then against secularism in general.

Think of this as an analogy to the NSDAP (comparisons to Nazism are, IMHO, acceptable in the context of understanding how anti-democratic politics operates). In the 1930s, you could say "Wonderful! The NSDAP is trying to get involved in electoral politics, rather than pushing for armed revolution, as they did in 1923." However, the logic of this -- that substantive political outcomes are better when noxious factions act through normal political channels -- ignores the fact that these noxious factions frequently destroy the political system quickly and efficiently.

Posted by blahblah | April 30, 2007 1:13 PM

In my experience, the Turks are far more secular than Americans. They have lived for a long time under a rabidly secularist regime, so any movement towards an American style government would seem radical and would provoke an angry response. What the AKP proposed on the headscarf issue is that Turkish students have the same freedom that American students have: the ability to decide for themselves what to wear to school. Is that really so radical? Or is it the secularists who are the radicals? What is most interesting is that the headscarf rule in Turkey is identical to the law in France and the AKP's alternative is identical to the law in America. Yet the right-wingers seem to prefer the French law over the American one. Even stranger, those same right wingers think the laws in America are too secular and would prefer laws similar to Saudi Arabia, with the exception that Christianity rather than Islam be forced down the students' throats.

As for the comparison between the AKP and the Republican party here, I think it's unfair. The AKP is more secular than our GOP. It's just Christian instead of Muslim.

Posted by fostert | April 30, 2007 2:02 PM

"The first step after legalizing the wearing of headscarves in public capacities is a campaign of intimidation and terror against secular women, and then against secularism in general."

Except what evidence is there that the AKP wants to do the first in order to do the second? I personally am in favor of the headscarf ban, but this is a questionable line of causality.

Have the AKP leaders been involved in past failed coups like the Beer Hall Putsch? I'm not sure that the AKP counts as a "noxious faction" a la the Nazis. This seems more to be a cheap shot. If you want to talk about, say, Hezbollah, in this way, it would still be hyperbole and poisoning the dialogue, but at least Hezbollah is an actual violent terrorist organization that hasn't been too observant of Lebanese law.

Posted by Reality Man | April 30, 2007 2:05 PM

If [neo-cons take] the attitude that only rigid, Attaturk-style secularism is an acceptable form of political organization [...]

Indeed. The correct comparison for Attaturk-style secularism is not American-style secularism but French-style secularism. So it would be rather odd for those favoring a more interventionist foreign policy, who have been notoriously Francophobic as of the past decade or so, to support Attaturk-style secularism.

The "we should do what's good for Israel crowd" should also note the strategic advantage of having an Islamicist party in power in Turkey, provided Turkey remains non-anti-Israel ....

Posted by DAS | April 30, 2007 2:38 PM

I don't think it's fair to AKP to compare them to the Republican Party. The AKP is much closer to the will of the Turkish people than the Republicans are to the American people.

Posted by Steven G | April 30, 2007 3:05 PM

Comments about the size of the demonstration are absurdly beside the point: Turkey had an ELECTION, which the AKP won overwhelmingly. This gives them wide prerogatives, under the letter of Turkish law and the spirit of any meaningful form of representative democracy.

Remember, the protesters' target is the AKP candidate for the ceremonial post of President, a widely-admired, emollient man who has been deemed unacceptable because his wife chooses to wear a scarf. That's it.

If secular Turks want to block this intolerable affront to their ideology, they will be offered the opportunity to vote out the present government, sooner than we in America are given the comparable opportunity. Instead, they are effectively appealing to the military to rescue their country - not for the first time - from the majority of its citizens.

Posted by Dave L | April 30, 2007 3:40 PM

hey Blahblah-

Not sure I follow your justification of the Nazi comparison as being applicable because of "how anti-democratic politics operates." Last I checked, AK was regarded as more representative of the will of the electorate. At least that's what the vote-tally seems to suggest. Where exactly is there any indication of anti-democratic tendancies please? Looking back over NSPD's stance re: organized religion, its pretty clear the nazis were staunchly securalist as well, but it'd be a feeble argument that compared CHP to them. Let's just agree that specious comparisons cut both ways.

I do think, however, that the France comparison is right on, with the whole American "freedom of religion" vs french "freedom from religion."

and lastly, to address the responses to my poo-pooing the "massness" of a 300,000 person protest, I concede the number is big. What i meant was that i doubt the protesters have as broad-based a well of popular support as they think. It may be a "massive protest" but I don't think its a "protest of the masses"

Posted by PK again | April 30, 2007 3:41 PM

Agreed that anything resembling a moderate, democratic Islamic party should be welcomed.

It's the rigidity of the secularist position in Turkey, IMHO, that poses the single greatest threat to that country. There are lots of Turks who aren't fundamentalists, don't want to see their country become the next Iran, but simply can't take seriously (let alone trust) their government's reflexive secularism.

I'm a great fan of secular gov't myself ... hope to see it in the U.S. some day! Snark aside, we shouldn't kid ourselves about how problematic secular gov't is over here, let alone in Turkey.

(I just finished Orhan Pamuk's Snow, so these issues were already very much on my mind. Worth a read, you reading types out there.)

Posted by Anderson | April 30, 2007 3:49 PM

The problem is that the equivalence of Islamic parties in the Middle East with the Republican Party here isn't a sign of the wholesomeness of the Islamic fundamentalists over there. It's a sign of the dangers we face with a de-facto Christian fundamentalist party here.

If Americans were less apathetic, we'd be rioting in the streets over the recent Supreme Court ruling that erodes our civil liberties on the way to undermining Roe v. Wade.

-- Ehreval

Posted by Ehreval | April 30, 2007 4:41 PM

"The correct comparison for Attaturk-style secularism is not American-style secularism but French-style secularism. So it would be rather odd for those favoring a more interventionist foreign policy, who have been notoriously Francophobic as of the past decade or so, to support Attaturk-style secularism."

I've been kicking around a theory that I've seen a few writers mull over as well that the best parallel to the American right today is the French left. The style of politics, having pride in its ignorance of several issues, ethnic-cultural chauvinism in its foreign policy, etc. are all rather similar.

Posted by Reality Man | April 30, 2007 10:34 PM

The better comparison isn't to the Republican Party today. It's to European Christian Democratic parties in, say, 1890 or 1910 -- when the "Christian" part of the adjective had specific religious content, when there were violent tensions still in play between Catholics and Protestants in many large European countries, when Christian parties were severely bigoted towards women (prohibiting them from holding property in many countries), and when secular labor parties could be tarred by association with atheist Bolsheviks. Do we think European secular democracy would have benefited if Christian parties were excluded from fielding candidates for head of state at that point?

Posted by mattsteinglass | April 30, 2007 10:39 PM

If the AKP are like the Republicans, does that mean that the Democrats -- and even more, the Warren-era judiciary -- are like the Kemalists?

Posted by Pithlord | May 1, 2007 12:38 AM

You can't talk about the Islamists vs the
Kemalists as if Kemal was just another
politician.

To the secularists, I assume Kemalism is
akin to the US Constitution, not the Democratic
Party. In other words, its not something which
can be discarded on the whims of a simple
majority.

Posted by Raj | May 1, 2007 2:52 AM

Re; when Christian parties were severely bigoted towards women (prohibiting them from holding property in many countries)

Going back as far as Rome, women have NEVER been banned from owning property. This error is often made due to confusion caused by A) primogeniture, whereby the eldest son automatically inherited 100% of the family estate (but an eldest daughter if no sons in the family), and B) the fact that husbands gained full ownership and effective control over their wife's property (absent legal efforts to prevent this by wealthy fathers worried about fortune hunters) while wives could claim only "widow's rights" over a husband's estate. Still, simgle weomen and widows coudl and did own property at all medieval and modern eras in both Western and Eastern Euroepan history.

Posted by JonF | May 1, 2007 12:56 PM