Turkey the "2nd Iran" is not

This photograph shows Mustafa Kemal during a visit by Iran's monarch, Reza Shah. I chose to feature this photograph for a number of reasons, mainly to show that while both leaders had similar goals for their respective countries, their policies played out under completely different circumstances. People often are mislead into thinking that in the same vein that Reza Shah's policies of nationalism, secularism, and etatism ultimately failed, so too will the goals of the Kemalists ultimately fail in Turkey. By this logic, according to its advocates, Turkey will become the "2nd Iran," ruled by fanatical mullahs in a theocratic state. I'm here to show that this scenario is simply not feasible.

First, let's look at the history in a comparative sense. Both Reza Shah and Ataturk were certainly authoritarian leaders who sought to mold society towards similar principles (secularism, nationalism, and etatism). In this sense, I mean "authoritarian" to be a neutral term, not a negative one. How both men went about it, however, is vastly different. Dr. Abi-Hamad once said something to the effect of "Reza Shah created a regime, Ataturk created a state." This certainly shed light on how Iran and Turkey developped differently. Reza Shah created a regime in which he was the shah, or monarch. His regime was the culmination of Iran's Constitutional Revolution from 1906-1911, which saw the conservative religious establishment of Iran fearful of "republican" principles, which they associated with secular France. Reza Shah, therefore, came to power on the idea that Iran would not be a republic, but a monarchy where traditions would be protected. Reza Shah's regime, however, enacted many reforms, such as secularization that saw forceable removal, sometimes publically, of headscarves and alienation of the religious establishment. In the end, Reza Shah could not protect Iran from an allied invasion in 1941, in which Great Britain and Soviet Russia divided Iran into spheres of influence. He abdicated the throne in 1941 in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Ataturk created a state. Authoritarian, elitist, interventionist (in the Lynn Viola sense of the term), and ideological. But it was a state nontheless. Ataturk was appointed president of a republic, in stark contrast with Reza Shah's declaration of being shah. While Turkey in the Ataturk period was government by a single party, the Republican People's Party, Ataturk, under the banner of populism, sought to bring the Turks under the fold of this party by extending participation in it. The Kemalist state extended voting rights to women, it set up "People's Houses" for educating the peasantry in the new reformed language, and enacted reforms to further define and standardize "Turkish identity." Ataturk also never banned headscarves outright though the state discouraged it.

Iran and Turkey have both had camps of secular vs. religious, traditional vs. modern. The tensions between the two camps have at points been extreme. Turkey has undergone three coups by the military for the "protection of the secular principles." So certainly, Turkey's history is not 100% ideal, but it's been better off than Iran's. A key point in Turkey's history has been it's ability to stay autonomous. Starting with WWII, Turkey neither fought in, nor was invaded during the war. İnönü was shrewd enough to avoid both. Iran was invaded and divided by Soviet Russia and Great Britian during the war, sparking a change in leadership.

Then we must consider the coup of 1953 in Iran. As stated before, Turkey has undergone three coups. But those coups were the result of internal decisions and politics. Iran's 1953 coup was sponsored by the Eisenhower administration/CIA. An act that was interventionist and bred disillustionment among Iranians. However unfair or brutal the coups in Turkey were, they are still the work of internal politics. Furthermore, Mohammad Reza Shah did not transition the regime to a state. His White Revolution was characterized by corruption, foreign intervention, and furthering a "self serving" regime. İnönü after Ataturk, moved the state to multiple parties, not just the RRP.

People often say Turkey is in danger of becoming the "2nd Iran." This statement is false. History has developped differently in these two countries for Turkey to take that course. The rise of conservative Islam in Turkey is countered with a reaffirmation of secular/nationalist values. Also, as I have spoken before, secularism and Islam overlap in Turkey. In Iran, under the Shah's they did not. And due to this, one was exclusive to the other. Turkey's rise of Islam, I feel, won't be characterized by that. The Turks don't want an Islamic state. They want a secular democracy where Islam is respected, but not necessarily the state itself.

call for "Bureau of Religious Affairs" in America

This photo of Mustafa Kemal among imams of Islam might shock the viewer for a second. After all, didn't Ataturk drive the new Turkish republic to secularize after abolishing both the office of the Caliphate and the Sheik-ul Islam in 1924? Why then is he pictured here in a pious stance? The answer has to do with the application of secularism in Turkey, and the reality that secularism is a universal ideal but a nuanced application.

The two powerful offices of Islam (the Caliphate and the Sheik-ul Islam) were swept away in 1924 and a new era of secularism was ushered in. But secularism, in my view, is a very nuanced application--varying from country to country. In the same way that Communism varied from Soviet Russia to China to Vietnam, or imperialism varied from Britain to Spain. So too does secularism vary from Turkey to France to the United States. Turkey's brand of secularism saw the orthodoxy of Islam and the training of its imams put under the control of the state. Meaning that imams are employees of the state, receiving a state salary. Their sermons are written by the state's official organization, the Presidency of Religious Affairs. In addition of the assertion of the state over the religion, the 1928 Turkish constitution left out the notion that Islam was the official religion of the state. The main objective of the Presidency of Religious Affairs is to "execute the works concerning the beliefs, worship, and ethics of Islam, enlighten the public about their religion, and administer the sacred worshipping places."

This may seem like a contradiction to what we understand as secularism in the west, which is geared towards a total separation of church and state. In Turkey's case, secularism means the religion is regulated by the state. The state structure is superimposed upon the religion. To me, this seems like a great model we could even adopt in the west.

Let's take America for example. If we had a "Bureau of Religious Affairs" for example, the government could mediate and regulate religion. For example, there was recent story where Muslim holidays are left out of school calendars, while Jewish and Christian holidays are recognized. Under this Bureau of Religious Affairs, the state could give Islam, Hinduism, Taoist, and other religions their due and recognize their holidays along with Christian ones. Much like Turkey's organization, this office could also monitor religious activity, even regulating extremism (both in Islam and in Christianity). Ideally, the bureau would decide on an official orthodoxy for Christianity and would promote this orthodoxy against more extremist fringes such as Catholicism, Baptists, and Mormons.

The bureau would be supported by tax money, so the tax exempt status of churches, mosques, etc would be revoked. No need, the bureau would be responsible for all "religious charities" monitored by the government in a check-and-balance system. The bureau could also write the sermons and ideally the preachers, imams (employed by the state, possibly voted or appointed by the citizenry) would merely read the sermons (thereby negating personality and prejudice on the part of many religious leaders). Also, the bureau would be in charge of training preachers, imams for their jobs. Ideally it would be illegal to preach without certification from the bureau.

This is the case in Turkey. Sounds like a brand of secularism that America needs. Our "government stay out of religion" is breeding extremism and discontent. Churches are a den of would-be patriots ready to take up arms against their "great-Satan" in Washington. If we could secularize in the sense of sucking religion into the bureaucracy of government, perhaps our society could more uniform in terms of religion.

Realpolitik

I walk with Göksu and another one of his friends through Taksim Square. We spot a stand with a sign reading "Return to the Death Penalty for Terrorists." I find out that this is aimed at the PKK and its leaders who are in jail but will never face execution due to Turkey's abolition of the death penalty. The petition will be sent to Ankara and Erdoğan's government.

As we go through Taksim, we see a nationalist rally (the tail end of which is in this photo, for the video go to my facebook profile). The protesters are changing "Her şey vatan için...her şey vatan için." (Everything for the nation). They wave huge Turkish flags and carry a picture of Ataturk. For some, this may seem off-putting, even scary. This, after all, is a nationalist group.

But we can't see this demonstration, or nationalist feelings such as this, in terms of our own history. In fact it's a hindrance. For many Europeans, nationalism is equal to Nazism or racism. Really, that's their issue, not Turkey's. The more I stay here and talk with people, the more I am convinced that Turkey has the capacity to stand on it's own. Does Turkey need Europe? Economically maybe, but in other regards, no. Europe has become a corpse in many ways. It's overrun with snot rags who think that somehow idealism can transcend the stark realities of life. Abolition of the death penalty can somehow transcend the grief of families directly affected by terrorist acts; abolition of nationalism can somehow transcend the struggle the Turks have had to claim their position in a world that would otherwise pass them by.

Turkey must play the Europeans like a fiddle, just as much as it should play Iran and other Middle Eastern neighbors like a fiddle. The Europeans are naive if they believe all their idealism can make a difference, just as much as the Middle East is naive if they think Islam fundamentalism can ultimately achieve its aims. Turkey straddles two idealistic worlds, which if it can recognize that and play Realpolitik with it, it stands to gain everything.

Ask Cardinal Richelieu about Realpolitik, and take some heavy notes as he tells you.

Turkish pop music

Today's topic is going to be lighter than previous topics. Turkish pop music has really made an impression on me as far as what I listen to in Istanbul. I like Turkish pop music because I think that the flow of the language really compliments the music. Turkish has an amazing ability to be drawn out for emphasis or chopped up speed.

My favorite singer is Hande Yener. She's had a career going strong for 10 years and listening to her earlier music and comparing with with her recent songs, I understand how she can be so popular. Her first breakout hit was in 2000 with a song entitled "Yalanın Batsın." The song is reminiscent of early 1990s music, Ace of Base comes to mind when I listen to this song. Moving later, her song "Aşkın Ateşi" combines a traditional Turkish sounds with fast paced dance. Among the Turks I have spoken with, this song is well liked. My personal favorites are: Arsız, Romeo, Hipnoz, Pinokyo, Yasak Aşk, Unut, Kibir, Ok Yay. I recommend listening to them if you like a combination of dance/pop and traditional Turkish sounds.

Of course Tarkan is another favorite of mine. Simarik is a classic, but my favorite Tarkan song is Kuzu Kuzu. The video shows his talent of sheer performance as he dances and sings. Another good song is Her Neredeyse. Like Hande Yener, Tarkan has enjoyed a very long career that has morphed with the times. That's the secret of their success, they have careers that when looked at in their totality, demonstrate a range of sounds, techniques, and approaches to music. Of course it doesn't hurt that both Hande Yener and Tarkan are easy on the eyes as well.

Mustafa Sandal along with Sertab Erener are also good to listen to. Sertab Erener's Everyway that I can song was a hit and won the Eurovision Contest, a first for Turkey. Sertab's Shut Up and Dance demonstrates a easy listening sound that is just as good as any pop song she sings. Mustafa Sandal's Indir and Karizma are both addicting. He is particularly talented at singing lyrics very fast.

Other favorites include Manga's "We could be the same," and Badem's "Sen ağlama." Manga won second place in the Eurovision Contest this past year. Their song, in my opinion, was so much better than Lena's. I also love Pinar Aylın's Bekletme.

Osmanlı Rüyası by Nuray Mert

For today's post I would like to discuss an article we read in our okuma class. It was a op-ed written by Nuray Mert for the newspaper Radikal. The piece is dated 04/28/2009.

Nuray Mert is certainly an author I want to research in depth. For my thesis on Atatürk, she seems to be a good source to quote. This particular piece she wrote is called Osmanlı Rüyası, or "Ottman Dream." I posted yesterday some thoughts on the Ottoman Empire, and touched on nostalgia felt for it by religious conservatives. Mert, however, goes into detail on the subject of "Osmanlı nostaljisi." Something that she sees as fake and rooted in emotion rather than historical fact. The article makes me question my observations I espoused yesterday.

Mert's language stands out. Her tone is satiric and witty. Using old Ottoman Turkish words (of Arabic or Persian origin) she satirizes the nostalgia felt on behalf of religious conservatives (Mert calls them 'muhafazakar' a word noticeablely of non-Turkish origin) for the Ottoman past. According to Mert, there are two ideologies competing for power in Turkey: republican ideology (she is careful not use Ataturk's ideology or Kemalist ideology) and what she describes as 'Osmanlı mirası" or "Ottoman legacy." The aims of the neo-Ottomanists according to Mert is "to build a society bound by religious culture in place of [one that is] modern and secular."

Her main argument is that for the muhafazakar, the Ottoman empire has become a symbol of an Islamic "golden age." The muhafazakar see the Ottoman state as "an island of civilization, a tolerant heaven, a symbol of justice, a heaven on earth."

Mert expands on this point to bring up some realities of the Ottoman state. She asks, "where were women's rights in the Ottoman empire." She answers by saying that for the average person in the Ottoman empire, there were no rights. The sultan's word was law. Mert also goes into some discussion about the "Ottoman woman." Though she doesn't believe personally that women in hijabs in Turkey want to return to that status, she does point out the irony that they champion a system that afforded women no rights.

For me personally, I think I would like revise my thoughts on muhafazakar. Yesterday I stated that I was in the secular camp but that I thought that the muhafazakar were harmless. After reading Mert's article, I have doubts now. I admire her uncompromising commitment to secularism and modernism. And I agree with her point, that all of this is a mere "dream." I look forward to reading more of her articles.

The Ottomans/Turkey's future

There's an aspect of Turkey that I have barely mentioned until this post. Mainly because my area of interest is Kemailist Turkey. But I would like to take some time to talk about the Ottoman Empire and its achievements. The photo is of me standing in front of Dolmabache Palace, the final resisdence of the Ottoman Sultans until Atatürk abolished the Sultanate in 1922. I believe he was right to abolish the Sultanate and declare Turkey a republic. The times had demanded it.

But that does not take away from the marvel that is Ottoman history. The Ottomans managed to build an empire, become the leaders of the Muslim world, become a haven for religious tolerance in their realms, and solidify Anatolia's link with the Middle East and Europe. Phenomenal achievements!

1451 say the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Fatih Mehmet. The Turks conquered the city bringing an end to the ancient Greek Byzantine Empire. Constantinople became the jewel in the Ottoman crown. Curiously enough, the prophet Mohammad is said to have predicted that the Muslims would conquer Constantinople. Fatih Mehmet is a legendary figure, still revered by the Turks. In his conquest, Fatih Mehmet personally had the Christians in the newly conquered realms protected by law. There's even on decree from him staying that a monastery and the monks living in it are under his personal protection.

In a time when Europe was torn apart by religious strife, the Ottomans were known for their religious tolerance. Of course, Islam was the state religion, but there were autonomous communities of Christians and Jews who played an important role in the society of the Ottoman Empire. Many religious Turks I have spoken with always cite the toleration of the Ottomans for other religions. That's the importance of the Ottoman empire, because I believe it gives us a glimpse into how the religious Muslims want to be. People say Turkey is in danger of becoming the "2nd Iran." I don't belive this is true.

I believe that the Ottoman nostalgia that many religious Turks share is based on what made the empire great: tolerance and openess. They look to a time when Islam was indeed about peace, progress, and most of all innovation. The Ottoman empire was great because it was innovative, it reinvented itself many times. It's static periods resulted in its decline.

I would count myself in the secular camp. But I am starting to understand the religious Turks' point of view. Our image of Islam in the west: terror, oppression, violence, is not what religious Turks want. In fact, terrorism would be something completely alien to the Ottomans. The religious Turks, from my experience, don't want radical change. They want a society that recognizes their religious rights while still maintaining its open and democratic character. I'm not clear what they believe about secularism. But a very good friend, who is religious, told me that it is not desirable nor probable that the constitution will be changed in favor of a religious state. I don't think so either. I think Turkey is unique in that it will balance secularism and Islam, it has the national character to balance these two ideas. In that, the Ottomans are to be respected. They left a legacy of religious piety without religious extremism. They truly created a pragmatic synthesis.

Kandiliniz Mübarek Olsun

Today is a religious holdiay in Turkey, called Mıraç Kendili. It celibrates the ascent of the prophet Mohammad to heaven. The photo with this post is a picture of kendil simidi, which is eaten during this holiday. At night, I will walk along the Bosporus and see all the mosques lit up for the holiday. The holiday also marks a month before the fast of Ramazan starts. I don't know whether or not I will be in Turkey for Ramazan, if so, I will leave soon after it starts.

Today I went to Simit Sarayı, and asked for Kendil Simidi. I was given a box and had it along with some chai tea. It was delicious. What was also interesting was that they workers seemed to really appreciate that I acknowledged this holiday by asking for a box. Holidays such as this are a good indication of culture. They don't seek dominate the landscape, they are just a subtle reminder of a certain aspect of the Turkish character. In many ways, the Turks preserve their identity by holidays such as this. While I am certainly in favor of a secular, open society in Turkey, I really feel there is a place for Islam in Turkey. After all, the Kemalists want Turkey to perserve its heritage and identity while being modern and advanced at the same time. Holidays such as this are a good medium to achieve this.

How funny that I am listening to Mustafa Sandal while writing a post on Kandil. But it reflects the dual nature of Turkish society: the modern and the traditional. A nature that keeps me fascinted. A nature that I see in myself as well.