A group of thousand, maybe more, people walk towards a police barricade hundred meters away. They are doing five-second long chants, usually initiated by an insistent loud screamer and ending with a confused and bored indifference. The next chant starts five seconds later, dies down after another five. Now that they have come closer to the barricade, police throws a few gas canisters. People start running. It’s not a “let’s avoid the gas” run, it’s a “somebody must be chasing us with the intent of murder” run. (daha…)
‘English’ Kategorisi için Arşiv
The weekend revolution of the asleep generations of Turkey
Yayınlandı: Haziran 6, 2013 / English, Lives of Turks, life in Turkey, Politics in and of TurkeyEtiketler:Erdogan, Gezi Park, Istanbul, protest, Taksim, Turkey
The curious incident of Mustafa Akyol on Twitter
Yayınlandı: Ocak 31, 2012 / English, Politics in and of TurkeyEtiketler:Islamic Liberalism, Kemalism, Mustafa Akyol, religion, state religion, twitter, İslam
I agree with most of what Mustafa Akyol says in his article about Gençliğe Hitabe (Atatürk’s Address to Turkish Youth). To clarify my position, I believe it should still be taught in schools, but not as a text that someone vows to follow word by word. It definitely should not be on every classroom corner or preface of a textbook, however, it still can be taught within its historic context. It should and can be taught in the same matter the founding documents of USA or Magna Carta are taught (although it definitely does not hold the same significance or value), and it should not be used to further racist and/or nationalistic prejudices, in the same way the latter are not used to support slavery and/or serfdom.
But this is not the main issue at hand. (daha…)
Who is Recep Tayyip Erdogan?
Yayınlandı: Eylül 24, 2011 / English, Politics in and of TurkeyEtiketler:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey, Turkish, Turkish Prime Minister
He is a man with dreams, but without vision. He is a man of desires, but no ideals. He is a man with guidance, but without principles.
He is not a democrat. Though he can act like one. He doesn’t mind democracy as long as he is in line with the majority, or the majority is in line with him. The direction also doesn’t matter. He probably never internalized democratic concepts, but he does believe in some of them. Some of them he secretly resents, but within time learned to put up with.
He is not cultured. When stuck he resorts to his shopkeeper and footballer derived examples. Both of which he had actually been in the past. Would not be a problem, if he were able to use some other examples from time to time or as necessary; but he is just not able to. He is willing to learn, but it is probably too late for him – just not enough time, too busy being a politician for a long time now. You might run into him trying to use concepts from game theory or international relations, with no theoretical background. So, he tries. And mostly fails. As he never truly, deeply understands what he actually says.
Some in the world thinks he is an oppurtunist and pragmatist. He probably is. He probably should be. He is a politician and prime minister of a country in the world in 2011, what were you expecting? Not more than Berlusconi, not more than Sarkozy, not more than Cameron I can assure you.
He declared he cannot be secular, only a state can be secular. He also declared as a prime minister he will do whatever is expected of a prime minister of a secular country. He does not and will not say he is secular because he believes a true believer of Islam cannot seperate worldly things and religion in his personal life. Yet, he thinks he can act like one as demanded by his title? He is conflicted. He is confused. Again, he does not truly understand or is capable or open enough to conceptualise secularism; so resorts back to the learnings of his past, which is heavily influenced by Islam. But in a world where Bush and Obama quotes the Bible and UK has a queen who is crowned in a church, is his behaviour or standing outrageous? I doubt so.
So, is he an Islamist as some claims? Might have been one at some time in the past. Although I even doubt that. Probably grew out of this idea, as it is not primary to his desires and ego.
For years, when he was younger, he ‘followed’ a heavily Islam guided politician, namely Necmettin Erbakan. He, then, in a way again to be explained by his desires, cut ties with him. Changed some of his political conduct and declared he has changed. Probably did. But his ability and possibility to follow someone with religious dictations, still stand true. This scares many Turkish people. But again, it is too late for him to change again. It also probably does not suit his bigger desires and his ego to act under his religion based desires.
He is not a tolerant person. Has clear oppressive behaviour and anger issues. Though within years thank to his well fed ego and feeling of superiority, backed up with quite some power, he does indeed act and learned to act more and more tolerant. But it is not a quality of his character, but more of an accident of who he has become.
He is a man of honour, I guess. But his honour is not to principles, righteousness or justice; his honour is to his loyalties – his loyalties in decreasing order are to his family, to people who act with him and within his directions, to his countrymen as he describes them and to people from his religion, again as he describes it.
When he talks out of pre-prepared text he simply stumbles. Only if the topic can be resolved within his own basic morality he might be able to hold tight. Or maybe if the topic is something he talked about from prepared text many times before. He is clever – probably better defined as savvy; he is definitely not wise, probably a little above average intelligence.
While he was a politician, using his influence, he bought shares from a chocolate company’s distribution chain. Sold them when he became prime minister. Still, earned millions and millions of dollars. Used his influence to get scholarships and work for his children in the US. He is a trader, more likely a shopkeeper, with good connections. Many claims he earned lots more from lots of more different connections. Yet, since he became prime minister it can be said corruption decreased consistently. People who were corrupt under his rule were somehow disconnected from the party, although not punished or prosecuted.
Is he charismatic? I have to say so. Have to, because his charisma does not influence me but it clearly influences many. A lot of people who are not unintelligent, crazy, naive or clueless. Though his charisma is simplistic, a voodoo juju, it still works fine.
He has beliefs. He is a strong believer. His beliefs are varied, and old fashioned and hard to change. Beliefs, most of which are probably not formed through his own thinking but his upbringing. He believes in a more peaceful world. He believes when he says that Israel is wrong in his actions against Palestinians. He believes that Turkey can become a great country, and he certainly believes he can be the one to achieve that.
He does not have good manners. He can easily be sexist or racist or just simply vulgar. He doesn’t have a true compassion. All his compassion, his singing and crying (which he does from time to time) are reserved for people of his loyalties. He is not a man of diplomatic capabilities. He is not a man of empathy.
So is he a good statesman? He is above average. Probably better than most of the previous ones Turkey had. Still, Turkey does deserve better. Has a particularly reasonable team of advisors that help him. Has a reasonably competent group of ministers that support him. He acts in accordance within realities dictated by the global world. He does the least, but still does, of what is dictated by the changing desires and improvement of general Turkish public. All these, together with his ability to work hard, balance his bad qualities so that he can act as a proper statesman. And probably in the end, did contribute quite a lot to Turkey.
Many in Turkey, more than in the rest of the world, might claim he is evil. Is he? He is not. He is just one man with some underdeveloped, half realistic dreams, desires and wants. He has a big enough ego to help him work towards these goals, and a conscience barely enough to keep him crossing the line, whatever that line is, while trying to achieve his dreams.
He is a man of this world of this age. Nothing glorious, nothing significant. A man, that circumstances and some characteristics led to his significant position today. A position he uses to do some good in his own understanding, and some good for himself, and mostly no good because he is mostly no good.
He is just a man, who for the time being, from time to time, forgets he is just a man.
Remember him not being a tolerant person? He sues people who criticises him. Hopefully and thankfully I am out of his radar. These are merely my observations. My only reservation is that he is a man full of surprises (some caused by him, some just happens around him), so he still might suprise me or prove me wrong. And I might be wrong in the first place. But I can assure you this ‘analysis lookalike commentary’ is closer than those biographies of grandeur or evil that you might read in the world renown publications or in politically motivated comments that follow them.
The clash of understandings of Arab Spring and the illusion of Turkey as an exemplifying reason
Yayınlandı: Eylül 22, 2011 / English, Politics in and of TurkeyEtiketler:Arab Spring, Arabs, Brazil, China, East, foreign policy, Greece, Greeks, illusion, India, Middle East, orientalism, Ottoman Empire, Turkey, Turkish, Turks, West
This illusion, or illusions, is that of Turkish and people who are trying to illustrate Turkey to their fellow compatriots of non-Turkish. Therefore it is a rather insignificant illusion. Yet it is interesting to note, to have the chance to know something as well as I can being a Turk; that changes, not only because it also changes in reality, but the world’s – and I use world in its most commonly used sense as in world is composed of Europe and its former baby, now champion US – illusion, conception, understanding and judgement about it changes as well. So, I would rather say it ‘truly’ changes as the truth seems to become the truth only when it is acknowledged by the ‘world’.
And to prove this point one doesn’t have to look far as the Arab Spring is at our convenience right now. There, you can see how things do not truly change, at least not until, the ‘let’s wait and see’ if the ‘support’ will bear its fruits, or will the Arabs – not as a culture but as a conception – just fall back to their winter period, is over. Meanwhile without a glimpse of doubt it is thought without ‘support’ it will definitely fall back, but unfortunately and despite this support it might still fail. Fail, because that is the way of the Arabs. And yet there is nothing the ‘world’ can do to achieve what is right for ‘these’ people despite themselves. And yet they still try through America, in Iraq or Afghanistan. And it is their ‘duty’ as some politicians might claim to do so.
Yet Turkey is changing, because contrary to the belief and to the surprise of the ‘world’ it is becoming wealthier as a result of its own accomplishment. Is it surprising that the ‘world’ is ready to acknowledge such success, a success that can be measured in money? And they are ready and afraid and willing and trying to change their conception of some other countries as well; China? India? Brasil? Any country that can become rich, even if through the support and leading of the ‘world’ but still managing to make it look like it is their own doing deserves an applause. Indeed a huge applause, especially as it was not too long ago (and yes, a person of the ‘world’ might quickly notice, they still have many problems) they were so corrupt, unable and doomed. Much like the Arabs and Africans of today.
However, the more I talk about the ‘world’s’ conception of things it looks like I get further away from the illusion and am stuck in just pointing out examples of the well established concept of orientalism. My example is still the illusion of Turkey: A country that is tried to be fit into a role model for their next-of-kins Arabs by the ‘world’. Why? Because ‘although’ it is predominantly ‘Muslim’ it can still function as (at least resemble) a ‘true’ ‘Christian’ democracy. Ironic, that the foreign relations intellectuals in Turkey are also warning: even if we do want to become a role model we should do so without acting like one, and we should not remind them of our leadership (or as the Arabs would like to see, domination) during the Ottoman era. How fitting it is for both sides; the ‘world’ and the Turkey within their own illusions, to think how to save the poor Arabs.
The Turks’ illusion of Turkey is that it has become a country to lead. And it might be the illusion of the ‘world’ that Turkey stopped being a country to be led or of insignificance or of encumbrance and became a country of usefulness. Illusions all around. And yet there is nothing to be said for the reasons of these illusions and the changes in the illusions, in the past or now, other than that it solely depends on money. Coming from someone who first of all tries to explain all foreign policies and ongoing conflicts in the world through the motivations of economy, what does this mean? It means that the money is the closest thing to rationally explain the reasons for these illusions whether they are close to truth or not; but many other explanations are found, some very misleading and disturbingly effecting the actualities of the future.
Other day on a Turkish TV channel a Turkish guy, at his convenience, summed up the two dominating philosophies of the world right now: One, he says, are people that only look to the last 100 or 200 years – the period after industrialization – and tries to explain the world through it and the second, who looks at the world since its beginning and sees how much the East has also contributed to the civilization. The first ones, he says, tries to explain the world by clash of civilizations; whereas the second tries to lead the world to peace.
Here is a little test: Looking at Arab Spring how do you explain what has happened there and what will happen? Did you resort to one of the two ‘philoshophical views’? But let’s forget that typical TV simplification of things. Did you resort to history? Is not it possible for anyone; European, American, Turkish or Arab alike, to try to explain what is going on in the Arab countries right now just looking at the people who are doing it and what these people are themselves? What do they want and what they are; but not what they have become and where they are coming from? Or is it just too convenient for the ‘West’ and ‘East’ similarly; to look at Arabs and say they always have fought, look at financial crisis in Greece and say they were always lazy and corrupt, and look at Turkey and say they are improving and becoming influential because they were an Empire once and dominated Balkans, North Africa, Middle East? If you think I’m exaggerating try to find an article that explains the new Turkish foreign policy without the Ottoman inheritance. Is not this approach simply just looking at the things of the past that are able to explain the result. And yet if things were going bad for Turkey I am sure there would be millions of historic explanations deriving again from the failure of Ottoman Empire itself. And if Greece had been doing great it could have been explained through how present Greeks resembles their great ancestors of ancient Greeks.
It is actually the struggle not the wealth in these countries that are truly changing. The struggle of people in Turkey, China, India, Brazil and many others that does start with the ambition to get rich, but will go through the improvement of ideas, life, philosophies, science and unfortunately, will probably end in the struggle to get and stay rich again. The ‘world’ struggled to get rich and meanwhile they produced ideas and science and now they ended up in only trying to stay rich and wealthy. And if a oriental was to foresee the future of the East through the simplification of how the West tried to explain the East, and looked at West to make sense of what will happen to the East as it is the West it started to resemble (applaused and confirmed by the West) would not he conclude that one day the East will end up in a position where their only aim is to get rich and stay rich and satisficing with the rest of their lives?
Or will the ‘world’, through observing the changes in East, understand how content they have become with the fruits of their past struggle to get rich; namely representative democracy and capitalism with a hint of state supported socialism?
So far I, myself, am quite irritated by the way I have depicted the alleged dominant view in the West, even if I did it for a reason. It is my allegation guess and I will still stand by my point that it is a dominant view, or at least a view that dominates the base of many other views. But, how simply I classified the ‘world’ into people content with their lives, only money oriented, prejudgemental, orientalist fools and how wrong was it. I know there are many people, anywhere in the world, that think and struggle to improve the world and do not perceive the rest of the world through this limited approach. So, if so far you have been disturbed by my depiction of the ‘world’ just take it as an example of how easily you could do it for the rest of the world. And if you have not been disturbed by it, think how easily you can do the same thing you blame other people for doing.
However, despite all my misconceptions of how the ‘world’ sees the rest of the world, the following question can still be rightfully asked: Will the Arabs, Turks, Chinese, Indians be let alone to have their own struggle in their own way – as they had before the Europeans have their own – to contribute to the well being of humanity as they did before; or will they simply be forced to concede to the dictations of the ‘world’?
The most dangerous illusion of Turks about Turkey is how much they think they have started to resemble and are similar to the West. And the two differing, yet equally dangerous illusions of the ‘world’ about Turkey are, first, how much they think Turkey started to resemble themselves and second, how much Turkey does not resemble themselves.
What gives anyone the reason to think that the best Turkey or China or India or Brazil can achieve is to copy the countries, that are for now, relatively and presumably in better condition? Anyone, including the Turkish, Chinese, Indians and Brazilians themselves as well.
There is an oppurtunity. The oppurtunity to improve through the differences, through the people who are struggling even if they are not struggling for the right reason. This is not to say that we have to embrace and tolerate the differences, it is to say it is the difference from each other that will end up improving all of us. It is not the differences of their pasts or simply the differences of their religions, but the differences of their future that makes them truly different. And Turkey or China or India or Brazil might fail in doing so as there are many reasons to. They might not be able to change at all or they might change into the same thing we, as humans, already have and tested. But yet, they might not. And the world might improve; even if the ‘world’ think it cannot or already has.