The panelists:
Gönül Tol: Executive Director, Center for Turkish Studies, Middle East Institute
Daniel Brumberg: Director, Muslim World Initiative, U.S. Institute of Peace and associate professor at Georgetown University
W. Robert Pearson: former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey; President, International Research and Exchanges Board
Tol: Essentially stated that to question whether Turkey is becoming less democratic was to take the “simplistic” view of the situation. She urged the audience to consider how far Turkey has come and how much the dynamics have changed; for example, in the 1990s, Turkey’s foreign policy was inextricably tied to its security concerns: the two threats it had at the time were the Kurds and Iran and Syria’s nuclear weapons programs. Therefore, Turkey formed an alliance with Israel to balance out the region’s dynamics. These dynamics have since changed and Turkey no longer sees Iran or Syria as a major threat, although it is still grappling with the Kurdish issue. Thus, Tol, stated, that “Israel has lost its importance to Turkey and Turkey can afford to lose Israel now.” Its foreign policy is no longer security oriented, but focused on trade and economics. In fact, Iran and Syria are becoming important trading partners with Turkey, especially Iran. (Turkey reportedly gets 30% of its oil from Iran.) She pointed out that approximately 61% of the population who voted in yesterday’s referendum which extended the government’s powers over the judiciary, voted in support of the referendum. She stated that “what Turkey needs right now is an impartial judiciary (which has not been the case), not necessarily an independent judiciary.” (These two would seem to go hand-in-hand; how can a judiciary be impartial if it is not independent, i.e., not at the whims of any branch of government or other influence?) And the fact that there has been no outcry of fraudulent voting, would make one think that democracy is alive and well in Turkey.
However, Tol concluded, that Turkey still has a ways to go when it comes to respecting minority rights and that while Prime Minister Erdoğan has harshly criticized Israel for human rights violations, he has said nothing about human rights violations in Sudan or Iran. She stated that he will be held accountable next year in the elections for his failings. Finally, Turkey in general “shares most of the West’s goals for the region, including preventing nuclear weapons races, finding peace between Israel and Palestine, and eliminating Al-Qaeda.”
Brumberg then took the floor and focused primarily on the three models of governments in the Middle East: 1. Total-autocracy, as seen in Tunisia and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which means there is one party and none other. 2. Liberalized Autocracies: the majority of the region’s states fall under this category, elections tend to include all groups, but the same ruling party tends to remain in power 3.Liberalized Democracy: one side is always engineering elections, usually with the support of the military and possibly the judiciary (I found these categorizations rather confusing and not really central to the discussion.)
Brumberg’s main question was whether these amendments would truly prove to be beneficial to society or simply give the central government more power. He pointed out that Erdoğan has been accused of harassing and even closing large independent media outlets. Thus, despite the fact that a majority voted for the referendum, will that majority also undermine the rights of minorities?
Pearson: Every inch the diplomat, he brought some resounding wisdom and humor to the situation. He first congratulated Turkey’s national basketball team on their win yesterday, which he says, takes precedence over any referendum in Turkey, at least for the day. Then he stated, “Let’s be careful when we try to call ourselves experts on Turkey-this is not true unless you are Turkish-but let’s discuss it as Americans.” He compared American observations of what has been happening in Turkey to the “seminal shift in American politics” that occurred under Andrew Jackson and stated that he had no doubt “the Turks will solve their problems.” He felt a good way to view Turkey was through the words of a young Turkish woman he met who told him she was “Turkish by birth, Asian by culture, European by education.”
Interestingly, Pearson also stated that there is a “deep anti-Americanism in Turkey, as well as anti-Semitism” that concerns him. I found this a little startling, as I spent a week traveling around Turkey alone (just a week, I know) this summer and not once did I see, hear, or read anything that appeared even remotely anti-American (although I do not read or speak Turkish, so perhaps I lived in ignorant bliss that entire week). Of course, I would take the Ambassador’s word for it over my own experiences, seeing as he lived there for quite some time. I just do not believe that it is blatant ant-Americanism. His example of anti-Americanism was that the Turks cheered for Iran rather than the U.S. in the world basketball game between the two…he finished that anecdote by stating “It’s ok to be democratic and hate the U.S., but it is a certain amount of hypocrisy.”
Finally, he stated that it would be good for an opposition party to stay involved in Turkish politics. If human rights are heading south and the government is going to begin reducing citizen’s rights, then the opposition group that fails to block it will take the blame. (Anyone want to sign up?)
The overall consensus: nothing in the referendum election process or its substance was un-democratic. Just keep an eye on those Turks.
No comments:
Post a Comment