Turkish nationalism

[Boghos]

Turkey is a very peculiar country in the way it developed its political institutions. It also has a "shifted to the right" political spectrum.

 

These have important implications in the way the state conducts its affairs both domestically and internationally.

 

Can we expect anything positive, from an Armenian perspective, within the current modus operandi of the Turkish state ?

[nairakev]

It depends from which Armenian perspective we are dealing with Turkey.

When it comes from Armenia, I think Armenia should keep up its efforts to launch a serious dialogue with Turkey. And at the same time to keep strenghtening its media influence on Turkish society, like Radio or TV programmes destinated for turkish-speaking audience.
It's a the most pacifist way of destroying the "myth" of Armenians being enemies.

Secondly, if we approach Turkey from Armenian Diaspora efforts, than we should make more accent on the Human rights and the Genocide affirmation issues.

I think in this direction, most of all-armenian non-profit or even political organisations should take the initiative.

How is that possible? You may ask.

I'd say organising cultural, humanitarian or scientifique conferences and events with the participation of turkish intellegentsia or citizens.

The summer camps for youth. Why not organise in sunny California or in sunny Armenia (LOL...) some camps for kids and their parents who want to exchange experience. Imagine turkish kids and armenian kids in the same resort. Difficult, but that could be a very positive programme.

I don't think that we have to wait until Turkish society changes, or its political ambiance becomes more open-minded or peaceful.

Armenians should make more precise exchange programmes. Only that way we'll try to change or influence changes in positive non-violent, non-confronting way.

Saying that Turkey is nationalistic and millitarised society won't change anything. The constation of a fact should apply for some actions in order to bring changes.
That was my point, Beau gosse!


[ June 21, 2001: Message edited by: naira ]

[aurguplu]

dear boghos, dear naira,

it is my impression that at the moment the turkish government is allowing turks to get themselves exposed to the truth.

as far as i know neither one of you has lived in turkey for a number of years, so have not witnessed the changes the country has gone through.

when i was a teenager, to mention the word "kurd" was enough to get you into prison. today you can buy kurdish printed matter everywhere in istanbul. even generals try to crack jokes in kurdish in the southeast in a desparate effort to make themselves likeable.

when i was a teenager (and my desk-mate was an armenian at high school), the only time the armenians ever appeared in our history textbook was when they had sided with the russians in ww1 to destroy the ottoman empire and establish an independent armenia in anatolia. no other word about them, not before, not after. no word of deportations.

it was thanks to ozal that we started to break the taboos in turkish society. now it is true that many people did talk about what really had happened to the armenians, but always in closed circles. my grandfather had told me about the "alternative" version about what really happened to you guys in 1980-81, shortly before he passed away.

expect the state to change very little. our politicians, indeed politicians everywhere, enjoy the status quo if they are in power, and abhor and avoid any change because it may mean that they may lose their seats.

what has to be done has to be done at the civil level. ngo's maybe. i think first diaspora armenians have to come to turkey to visit the place and realise that not all turks are demons, and that there are some people with whom something can be started.

then we have to find a way to get some armenians express their version of the events. professor grigor-souny has already done this, and there is material about it in the hye forum or some other armo site if i remember correctly. he gave a lecture on the genocide at a turkish university and survived it intact. his opinion could be asked.

i myself know prof. berktay, and can try to organise something if people cooperate.

similar things helped the rapprochement with the greeks in these last few years, why can it no do the same with the armenians?

but remember, genocide recognition is going to be the culmination of our efforts. it would be a capital mistake to expect the government to admit to it at the outset. instead, they must be led to it step by step. remember, a government, by definition an elected body, cannot aford to take a decision fundamentally against the prevailing public opinion, because it is the same public opinionthat will vote them out of office if they don't agree with it.

i think at the moment the government is doing precisely the right thing. it is keping a low profile, while at the same time not punishing those turks (like me) for being in contact with armenians (i make no secret of it over here). we are the ones who are going to prepare the ground for further dialogue, and expose more turks to the reality. the government would accept the genocide only if they see that the majority of the population has accepted it in the first place.

therefore, i think it is wrong to attempt to start anything at the government level. it has to start with the common people through ngo's. and that means personal efforts. i am ready to give mine.

cheers,

[Guest]

Well, these attempts to reconcliate armenians and turks couldn't have come at a worse moment in history. At a time of rising nationalism in Turkey(where were you during 80 years while moderate people were in power?!) , while they predict MHP(the extreme right wing nationalist-fashist party) is setting for taking over the country probably in the next few years I don't know how much can be achieved by peaceful people like Berktay, while he cannot attend a TV discussion, while people like Tamer Akcam come under heavy attack from the press(which also shapes the public opinion) and who lives abroad... I don't know if a honest and sincere person can expect anything from those contacts. I am sometimes wondering if these attempts to get Turkey to recognize the genocide aren't attempts by some to exacerbate nationalistic feelings and bring MHP alone to the power at the next elections. I compare this to Ocalan's execution case: for the moment only MHP and to some extent the fundamentalist party wants him executed, showing them as heroes to the conservative majority of the turkish public opinion.

 

I don't believe in those attempts and as the leftist(actually the true nationalist ) Dogu Pericek pointed out USA are pushing Turkey towards confrontation with Russia in the Caucasus and these political games seem to me as a move to get their 'boys', as they like to say, at the driver's seat. But whether the 21st century version of the 'Union and Progress Party' will bring anything good to the turkish nation I have serious doubts about it. It will only help USA to achieve its goals in the Middle-East and leave a country in ruin(once again I extended beyond the subject sorry for that ).

[aurguplu]

hovik

here is a mini-analysis of the recent past of turkish politics:

1923-1950: one party rule: transformation of turkey from backward islamic community to modern secular nationalist society.

1950-1980: right-wing dominated politics, interrupted three times by military intervention. closed state, command economy.

1980-1983: military interregnum. military-drafted constitution voted for in 1982 referendum. still in force. a parody of a democratic charter.

1983-1993: pre-1980 parties that were banned reinvent themselves under new names and with new leaders . then the old parties come back, with new names but old leaders. now we have two of each political party. (three in fact, in the case of the left wing).

1993-present: gradual loss of power by centre-right and centre-left parties as these are split in two (and three) each. communism fizzles out, so does the left in turkey. iranian-and-arab-sponsored political islam gains strength, as does extreme nationalism on the back of kurdish separatism.

currently we have a largely defunct left, a totally corrupt and defunct centre right, an extreme right that has failed to deliver promises (ocalan's head) and a fundamentalist islamic party that was closed today (16:30 local time).

as the centre has collapsed, people were pushed to the extremes. so the shift to the right in turkish politics is caused by:

1. absence of a strong centre-left and cenre-right.

2. kurdish separatism (almost everyone who lost one beloved to pkk voted for the grey wolves in the last election).

3. failure on the part of fundamentalist islam to take root in turkish politics (islamic votes went to the grey wolves in the last election).

i shall carry this on. but i am first waiting for comments.

regards,

[Guest]

First the extreme right wing party MHP hasn't finished playing Ocalan card. You will see how it will be used as an instrument to gain votes at the next elections.

Second those people who lost relatives during the struggle against PKK should also be thinking how many relatives they will lose if MHP comes to power alone, as they are a direct instrument(and everbody knows that in Turkey)of USA in Turkey.

The fundamentalist party lost because of the political blackmail of 28 February in my opinion.

As a side note: although I am a christian I firmly believe that a fundamentalist party like Fazilet is much more likely to leave armenians alone than a pary like MHP.

[aurguplu]

dear boghos, dear naira

i appreciate your efforts to know more about turkey and turkish nationalism. as someone who has studied the country's history (abroad), and someone whose family took part in the formation of the new republic, i would like to help.

i think to understand turkish nationalism you might have to do some reading. i would be delighted to compile a mini-reading list for you if you care (notify me please).

it is true that turkish nationalism, indeed turkish political consciousness, developed along very different lines and in a different fashion than european countries and/or other muslim or ex-ottoman countries. it is because of the unique mix of the past turkey inherited, the economic and geopolitical settings, and the transition (still going on) from a backward medieval muslim state to a modern westernised pluralistic democracy. now it is true that it has not had a very positive record in this respect by the current western standards, but compared to the other muslim countries, it admittedly shines bright & clean.

it is a very different ****tail from what you get in other countries in transition. therefore, i think it merits special study.

regards,

[Guest]

About Ozal: he is not a good example of a person who wants friendly relations with armenians: in 1992 or 3 he was talking about dropping bombs on the armenian side and on another occasion he was raving about the harmony in which peoples were living in the Ottoman empire(that empire where the armenian genocide occured) and hinting about reviving it. I don't think he was talking about friendship but about engulfing Armenia! I don't think armenians really desire that...

[aurguplu]

1. i didn't know that the mhp was a direct instrument of the usa, any more than dyp or anap is.

2. i agree that fazilet is (was) more likely to leave the armenians alone, but they would leave them alone and **** up the whole country, like the ayatollahs in iran. at any rate, as long as we have the soldiers we have, there will be no room for islam in politics, and frankly speaking i do not disagree with that. you may say that this is not democratic, but i think democracy must have mechanisms that ensure its own survival. let us never forget that hitler came out of election boxes.

3. i know that they haven't finished playing the ocalan card, but they would lose all international opinion if they have him hanged. what i think they are doing is allowing the matter to drag on and on and on and on ... it tends to work in turkey (attrition warfare)

4. ozal was neither friendly nor hostile toward the armenians (besides the fact that his mother or grandmother was an armenian convert). ozal was a pragmatist, and he also had visions of a powerful turkey influential in an area stretching from the balkans to the chinese border. it was more a romantic rather than practical vision, admittedly, but it had seemed possible to many then. he would be ready to make peace with the armenians if it weren't for the nagorno-karabagh issue. and do not forget that the world unanimously regards armenia as the aggressor in this conflict.

what ozal had said was something like "what if we carried out a military exercise not far from the armenian border and two or three bombs were accidentally dropped on armenian soil?" to which all internal replies from within turkey were sheer outrage. ozal had an unfortunately deserved reputation as a brick dropper and frequently put the turkish state in difficulties because of that. if it weren't for his heavy -handed style (he was frequently criticised for running the country as if it were his dad's farm). in the case of a pragmatic politician like ozal, i find it a bit misleading and/or at least mistaken to talk about friends and enemies.

more later

cheers,

[MJ]

Dear Ali,

I'd like to express my disagreement with your statement about Armenia's being of an agressor in the eyes of the whole world. There is no single country in the world, except Turkey and Azerbaijan, which has qualified Armenia as an agressor in the Karabagh ordeal.

[Guest]

1. Those who killed their own countrymates in 1970s for simply being leftists or communists do certainly not qualify for being peacemakers and peaceful people. They may well have changed the window of their shop, the back room of the shop is still the same. The difference between ANAP and MHP is that the former has more democratic structures whereas MHP doesn't have a democratic tradition but rather a fashist one. Comparing a fashist party to a moderate right wing one is nonsense and shows that you may have some symapthy for them.

2. Without democracy you can only dream about entering the EU which has no room for you actually. On the other hand Turkey will never accept the armenian genocide and give up Cyprus so keep dreaming. If a large portion of the population wants to live in conformity with islamic principles preventing them from doing so looks to me as a basic violation of human rights.

3.I am not saying they will hang him. Actually I firmly believe they will not hang him but use him as a card in elections. We may even see him as a respectable politician some time in the future as Ciller claims.

4.Well Ozal was also one of USA's boys everbody knows that. The fact that his mother was an armenian convert is nothing unusual in the southeast, so many kurds and turks have a grand mother who was kidnapped or 'protected' and then 'converted' to Islam. He was acting on USA's orders as usual like in every matter.