I'm sometimes not sure whether or not stuff that pops up on the Atlantic frontpage is available to non-subscribers (you should, naturally, subcribe) but this December 2004 Robert Kaplan article about how the rise of the moderate Islamist AK Party in Turkey is a good thing is really good and well-worth digesting in light of their recent electoral victory and some of the fretting over it I've seen.
« In Our Bedroom After the War | Main | War Crimes »
Learning to Love the AK
27 Jul 2007 10:42 am
Comments (19)
Robert Kaplan, making sense.
Stopped clock, twice a day, etc.
I already "subcribe."
I'm suspicious of any political party that is aligned with a religion like the Republicans are with Evangelical Christianity. They're (the Islamist AK party, not the Republicans) moderate now, but it's too easy to take that next step.
Kaplan's article is unconvincing. He seemingly rests his argument on the following: "The re-Islamization of Turkey through the rejuvenation of the country's Ottoman roots was going to happen anyway". It was? Why?
In general, I think that "Islamization" is anti-liberal. Since we need to promote liberalization in the Middle East, I tend to think that Islamization is a step backwards. Now, if in any case Islamization is actually pro-liberal, that would be a different story. I don't have enough of a grasp of the AKP to know for sure - it is described as a "reform" party, but are those reforms actually liberal?
I'm suspicious of any political party that is aligned with a religion like the Republicans are with Evangelical Christianity. They're (the Islamist AK party, not the Republicans) moderate now, but it's too easy to take that next step.
In general, I think that "Islamization" is anti-liberal. Since we need to promote liberalization in the Middle East, I tend to think that Islamization is a step backwards.
Yeah, but guys, in the case of reforming the Islamic political world, we really can't make the mistake of making the perfect the enemy of the good. I don't like Islamic political structures any more than you do. But I have to recognize that there really isn't a viable alternative right now, and I think that we should pursue policies that support more moderate political movements in the Middle East, even if they aren't exactly ideal. I'm sorry but the idea that traditional western liberal democracy is ready to flourish across the Islamic world is a utopian fantasy. It's not as if the Western world moved quickly or painlessy from theocratic, authoritarian monarchies into liberal democracies, either. It's frustrating to make small moves but I don't see an acceptable alternative.
I'd actually been thinking recently about subscribing to the Atlantic. I've had a high opinion of James Fallows going back 15 years or so, they recently hired this Yglesias guy whose blog I like, and I'm sure that if I subscribed, I'd find other good things about the magazine. But it ain't gonna happen right now.
I'll subscribe when Marc Ambinder gets his ass fired for having basically said it's no big deal for the press to collectively decide which candidates they're going to destroy, on no stronger basis than whether they like them or not.
I take very personally the damage done to America by the press' decision to nitpick the Gore campaign to death in 1999-2000. I'll be damned if I condone anything like this again.
Since I see Ambinder's name is still up at the top of the page, forget it. The Atlantic isn't getting my money. What's more, if I see that rag in anyone else's house, I'm gonna tell them about Ambinder.
I'm really quite upset about what he said. This ain't gonna go away.
erm, Freddie, Turkey has had a secular political leadership since 1922 up until Erdogan, so it's not that in this case there aren't any alternatives to the AKP or Islamization, indeed, the country is pretty much split 50/50 on this issue
Novakant: Erbakan, Menderes, and Ozal were "secular" but Erdogan isn't?
Ozal and Menderes, yes, Erbakan no, but while he's been around for a while, he was only PM for a year, the military took care of that. Erdogan represents in my view a genuine sea-change in Turkish politics. But we'll have to wait and see.
Well, the implication behind my question is: *why* is Erdogan somehow different than, say, Ozal or Menderes? What evidence is there that RTE/AK is interested in subverting the fundamental secular structure of the Turkish Republic?
Andrew,
"Democracy's like a bus. You get off when you've reached your destination." - paraphrased quote from Erdogan.
Read Kaplan's "The Coming Anarchy" circa Atlantic 1993-94.
Februrary, I believe.
It's worth reminding everyone of how UNBEARABLY corrupt the Turkish secular ruling class was, prior to AK. Safely ensconced in their villas on the Bosphorus, from Ciller to Yilmaz they brought the country to it's knees.
Erdogan is proof that one honest man can change history. It's a wonder they haven't assassinated him yet.
Erdogan could believe in flying pink unicorns, and I wouldn't care. And I'm an atheist.
Al said: "I don't have enough of a grasp of the AKP to know for sure - it is described as a "reform" party, but are those reforms actually liberal?"
Yes, by any measure they are. The AK has enacted a liberalization of the economy, advocated a greater degree of freedom of expression (most obviously the headscarf issue), and adopted a somewhat softer attitude towards the Kurds (this is what Kaplan means by his funny phrase "Ottomanism"). One can see the AKP period as a kind of "re-democratization" of Turkey -- that term was first applied to Ozal in the 80s. I agree with the Kaplan article completely, even the part about "inevitability", though I think it is sort of oddly written ("Ottomanism", "gates of Vienna").
I think much of the fear of that CHP and secularist types have of Erdogan and the party is rooted in the AKP's incredible success rate; they keep getting more and more popular, even in former die-hard CHP strongholds, and this trend shows no sign of weakening. This gives rise to slippery slope-type panics, fear of an irreversible slide towards Iran. Yet actual manifestations of relgion in politics aren't that common; it's mainly symbolism so far. Calling the AK an "Islamic political structure" is also misleading; there are no clerics in the party heirarchy.
The obstinate CHP under Baykal is refusing to learn from its mistakes in the past decade and is becoming ever-more authoritarian and nationalist, and at the same time, more anti-populist -- the Socialist International is, I think, in the process of revoking the CHP's membership, and justly.
Then there's the MHP. Their renewed strength depresses me but it's really the only choice for the fully nonreligious but nationalistic and conservative demographic that forms the bedrock of fascisms everywhere.
low-tech cyclist, don't bother. I let my subscription lapse. I don't know when, maybe when Michael Kelly was editor, but the direction of the magazine seemed to have veered right at some point. I've seen Mark Steyn pieces get published, as well as David Brooks and of course there's Ross Douthat. I'm still torn concerning Hitchens (his contributions' quality vary), but the magazine is inconsistent.
[my previous comment got stuck in the moderation queue or something, so here's another try]
*why* is Erdogan somehow different than, say, Ozal or Menderes? What evidence is there that RTE/AK is interested in subverting the fundamental secular structure of the Turkish Republic?
Fair question, I'll give some examples:
Only three years ago, he started a major government intitiative to criminalize adultery and called the EU immoral for allowing it.
In 1998 he got jailed for publicly reciting this poem:
Mosques are our barracks,
domes our helmets,
minarets our bayonets,
believers our soldiers.
This holy army guards my religion.
Almighty our journey is our destiny,
the end is martyrdom.
Now, he shouldn't have been jailed for that and this showed one of the downsides of the Turkish secular system, but still these words make you want to question were he's coming from ideologically.
The most important thing though, for which I was criticizing Freddie's comment, is that many in the west assume that because Turkey has a history that involves Islam and is close to the Middle East, the secular parts of the population wouldn't be just as outraged by such overreaches of religion, as we would, if they happened in the US or Europe. These people are just like us, probably even more secular, in this regard, and their concerns aren't so easily dismissed when millions of them take to the streets.
Except, novakant, that the secular system had become such a cesspool of corruption and misconduct that a few feints in the way of Islam seem to me to be an acceptable payoff.
If Transparency International is to be believed the level of corruption in Turkey has been quite stable and Erdogan coming to power hasn't made things better - there is no significant change in the last ten years. Also Turkey is somewhere in the middle of the corruption index, not great, but hardly a cesspool.
Comments closed August 10, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Robert Kaplan on why we were right to invade Iraq in November 2002 Atlantic.
Well, that went well didn't it?
Posted by Dan the Man | July 27, 2007 10:56 AM