new Islamicist president of Turkey

[Sisyphus]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Turkey.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

Abdullah Gul, currently Turkey's foreign minister and devout adherent to conservative Islam, has won the election to become Turkey's new President, a post traditionally held by a secularist. The Prime Minister is also an Islamicist.

 

This is potentially very significant internationally because of Turkey's unique and delicate position. Strict secularist and Islamicist factions are of roughly equal strength, and it is a country that is both European and Middle Eastern in culture. It has a long history of ethnic and religious persecution, but in recent years there have been huge reforms.

 

It is trying to join the European Union, a bid which is the mostly hotly contested so far, mostly because of doubts about Turkey's commitment to secular and liberal ideals. If the bid fails, it could be seen as a deepening of the divide between Western ideals and Islamic culture. If it succeeds, it would be the only nation with a largely Islamic culture in the EU. It could be a true "foothold" of democracy and liberalism in the Islamic world, proving the two are not incompatible and that there need not be a war of cultures. Also, it would be self-motivated, which is absolutely essential. This is in contrast to something like Israel, which, among other things, was founded as a foothold of Western ideals in the Middle East, but imposed from the outside, which obviously has backfired spectacularly.

 

Hence, the election of Islamicist leaders have made a lot of people very nervous, because so much is at stake. Gul seems to recognize this, and has been assuring everyone that he will respect Turkey's secular traditions and the secular nature of the Republic, and that he is committed to helping Turkey join the EU. However, past statements have not all been consistent with this approach, and only time will tell if he is just paying lip service until he can consolidate power more fully. The leadership of Turkey's "fiercely secular" (according to the Times) military, which has "forcibly deposed four governments since 1960," is in open protest at the result, complete with implicit threats. The situation could potentially, therefore, devolve into democratically elected Islamicists vs. unelected but armed secularists, a situation sadly familiar elsewhere.

 

Um, thoughts?

[john5746]

I have to say I am ignorant in regards to Turkey - I know I don't want to be imprisoned there! Seems to me if they are a "shining star" in the Middle East, let them join the EU. Pushing them away would seem to be the wrong thing to do, IMO.

[Pangloss]

Gosh. If only we had, say, 162,000 troops in an adjacent nation supported by a Turkish-hating local populace.

 

I'm curious about the use of the word "Islamicist" above. Is the basic idea that the individual in question is not necessarily a Muslim, but one who supports Muslim religious goals?

[Sisyphus]

I was using "Islamicist" to mean one whose political position is determined by Muslim religious goals. (I don't know if it's used in different senses elsewhere.) I don't really see how such a person could not be a Muslim (or at least, how they could not publicly claim to be a Muslim...?). However, even a very devout Muslim is not necessarily an Islamicist, if they believe in a separation of Mosque and State.

[CDarwin]

For one thing, the AK (Gul's party) isn't "strictly Islamicist." It's a moderate Moslem party dedicated to secularism that opposes Sharia. If we're going to have Moslem parties in the Middle East, the AK is exactly what we need.

 

For another, the Turkey has already succeeded as a liberal, secular, democracy. That was the work of the demi-god like first leader of the Turkish Republic Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The AK's election victories demonstrate that. The great danger to the democratic process isn't Islamists it's the army getting nervous and effecting a coup.

 

Everyone in Turkey just needs to keep their heads and things will turn out alright.

 

Maybe I'm just burying my head in the sand but that's how things appear from what I've read.

[abskebabs]

It is trying to join the European Union, a bid which is the mostly hotly contested so far, mostly because of doubts about Turkey's commitment to secular and liberal ideals. If the bid fails, it could be seen as a deepening of the divide between Western ideals and Islamic culture. If it succeeds, it would be the only nation with a largely Islamic culture in the EU. It could be a true "foothold" of democracy and liberalism in the Islamic world, proving the two are not incompatible and that there need not be a war of cultures. Also, it would be self-motivated, which is absolutely essential. This is in contrast to something like Israel, which, among other things, was founded as a foothold of Western ideals in the Middle East, but imposed from the outside, which obviously has backfired spectacularly.

 

Hence, the election of Islamicist leaders have made a lot of people very nervous, because so much is at stake. Gul seems to recognize this, and has been assuring everyone that he will respect Turkey's secular traditions and the secular nature of the Republic, and that he is committed to helping Turkey join the EU. However, past statements have not all been consistent with this approach, and only time will tell if he is just paying lip service until he can consolidate power more fully. The leadership of Turkey's "fiercely secular" (according to the Times) military, which has "forcibly deposed four governments since 1960," is in open protest at the result, complete with implicit threats. The situation could potentially, therefore, devolve into democratically elected Islamicists vs. unelected but armed secularists, a situation sadly familiar elsewhere.

 

Um, thoughts?

I think you may need to be a little more careful with your words and research regarding this matter in order to avoid misunderstanding. 1st of all, joining the European Union is a trifle in comparison to the longstanding democracy Turkey has had for decades. In fact it has been like this for a long time, before the world started to acknowledge and widely use this notion of an "Islamic world".

 

However, it like other countries(Thailand comes to mind:rolleyes: ) doesn't have an apolitical military. So when it comes to protecting the country's founding secular ideals the Turkish army takes issue. The same is probably sadly true with how the secular nationalists and army have dealt with minorities in the past and could have dealt with kurds in the very near future if they had been elected. I'm sure you're well aware of the military buildup on Iraq's border, and the fact that the vast majority of the politicians proposing an attack inside Iraq were were these secularists. Imagine the quagmire that would have created, turning a relatively stable region of a very unstable country into a war zone?

 

Also it's important not to take such a black and white approach when looking at the politics of the country. It is the so called Islamists that have been pushing for entry to the European union, political and economic reform, even reducing the persecution of minorities!

 

Obviously, I like many others who support the ideals of secularism would be rightly concerned if a leader who is suspected of wanting to mix religion with state is elected. But the rest of the world and especially the Turks, who this chiefly concerns should and probably will just be a little wary developments, as you say time will tell. If things go out of line, the people will respond if they don't like it, it's the essence of democracy.

 

On another note, a big deal is made in Turkey over women wavering a veil in public places and institutions. Similar activities are carried out in staunchly secular countries like France. Now I ask you the question is the forced removal of a veil, or religious peace of clothing any different in the treatment of an individual than its compulsory wearing in states such as Iran, when judged by our metric of Enlightenment liberalism? I know Iran is much worse in many other ways, but we should not employ double standards in our comparisons.

 

Personally I hope the army stay out of the whole affair. Interestingly, similar sentiments seem to come form EU officials. It's almost a litmus test of Turkey's majority as to how it handles this crisis, for lack of a better word. It may risk losing brownie points if the army does decide to take action. But then again, this is really symbolic. I don't know why Turkey or anyone for that matter is so enthusiastic about joining the EU, it's wholly overrated. However if you want bureaucracy, infighting, regulations, gradual loss of sovereignty and like funding untenable agriculture subsidies join the Club:-p !

[CDarwin]

In Turkey, "The Army is the Constitution".

[Pangloss]

I was using "Islamicist" to mean one whose political position is determined by Muslim religious goals. (I don't know if it's used in different senses elsewhere.) I don't really see how such a person could not be a Muslim (or at least, how they could not publicly claim to be a Muslim...?). However, even a very devout Muslim is not necessarily an Islamicist, if they believe in a separation of Mosque and State.

 

Ah ok. Makes sense to me. I see the article touches on that a bit as well. I thought it was interesting.

[ecoli]

I don't know if this changes anything, but the BBC calls Abdullah Gul an "ex-Islamicist" Whatever that means.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6966216.stm