[lbo-talk] "secular elites"

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

On 4/30/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Ok, so now Yoshie tells us to dismiss the huge anti-AKP
> demonstrations in Istanbul as representing "secular elitists." I've
> got at least two problems with this.
>
> First, in the Turkish context, the Islamists are in large part drawn
> from the business class.

That is not true, as Cihan Tugal points out: "the AKP is widely
expected to win the Autumn 2007 elections, and has largely retained
its support among provincial capitalists, the pious small bourgeoisie,
the newly urbanized poor, important fractions of the police and much
of the liberal, left-leaning intelligentsia" ("NATO's Islamists:
Hegemony and Americanization in Turkey," New Left Review 44,
March-April 2007, <http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2657>).
 Against that diverse multi-class coalition represented by the AKP
stand the supporters of the military, representing the more
established power elite, such as the MHP (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi,
National Movement Party, also translated as National Action Party),
the CHP (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, Republican People's Party), etc. who
are rallying against the AKP.

> The AKP itself is quite neoliberal and pro-American.

Who said otherwise?  I spelled that out repeatedly here.  The AKP is
like the PT in economic and foreign policies, both retaining the
support of the poor despite that.  There can be a worse thing than
plain old neoliberal capitalism, though.

> (It's interesting to see such sympathetic coverage of AKP
> in the New York Times, which is not otherwise known for its sympathy
> to Islamist forces. And it's also interesting that their new
> correspondent in Istanbul, Sabrina Tavernise, collaborated with
> Michael Gordon on some "Iran is smuggling bombs into Iraq" stories.
> For that, YF christened her the "new Judith Miller" <http://
> mailman.lbo-talk.org/2006/2006-December/025854.html>.) So if we're
> talking about economic elites, then the politics of secularism are
> hardly clear - especially since there were many anti-imperialist,
> anti-coup secular forces also involved in the demos.

Someone forwarded me Kasim Akbas' posting to another mailing list.
Most socialists in Turkey avoided these right-wing nationalist
rallies, says Akbas: "Most of the socialist groups do not support last
two 'republican' demonstrations (on 14th and 29th of April, in Ankara
and Istanbul). According to them these demonstrations are not about
social justice, freedom or democracy but only about the continuity of
repressive republican regime" (Kasim Akbas, "Yanıt: [Marxism] Istanbul
demonstration,",
<http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2007-April/011737.html>).
 I'd say those socialist groups who abstained from the rallies are
smarter than a few who attended, though I do fear for the lives of the
former if worst comes to worst.

The worst doesn't have to happen, however, as the EU and the USA
probably don't want a coup just now.  The ruling class of the
multinational empire seem to favor early elections:

<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3ac08e8a-f708-11db-86b0-000b5df10621.html>
Turkey needs early elections, not army

Published: April 30 2007 20:11 | Last updated: April 30 2007 20:11

Turkey has entered a dangerous political crisis. The heavy-handed
intervention by the army in the stand-off between the neo-Islamist
government and the secular establishment over electing the next
president has turned the clock back on Turkey's emergence as a
fully-fledged liberal democracy. It risks coarsening public and
political life to the point of open confrontation.

The generals' declaration – that they are the "absolute" guardians of
the secular republic created by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk – is a
pronunciamiento from another era. An army that has ousted four elected
governments since 1960 – the last one in a "soft" coup against an
Islamist administration 10 years ago – is threatening to do so again.

That would be a terrible mistake.

First of all, the thesis that the Justice and Development party (AKP)
government led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan is intent on installing
theocracy by stealth does not really stand up. Mr Erdogan's party
combines the deeply conservative and religiously observant traditions
of Anatolia with a huge constituency in Turkey's modern but Muslim
middle class. It was created from the debris of failed Islamist
movements in order to supersede them; a rough analogy would be the way
the Christian Democrats emerged as modern parties of the centre right
in much of Europe.

Second, the AKP is a successful, reforming government. It overcame a
deep financial crisis, and enlarged democratic, human and minority
rights through the biggest ever overhaul of Turkey's laws. It has a
good chance of being re-elected. That is partly why Turkey's
fragmented, largely unmodernised secular parties are trying to win
back in the streets what they lost in the ballot box – and goading the
generals into helping them.

The trigger for this crisis was Mr Erdogan's decision to nominate his
foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, for president, to be elected by
parliament, where the AKP has a thumping majority. The minority
opposition's attempt to get the constitutional court to change the
rules is spurious and opportunist.

But underlying this clash is an umistakable whiff of class animus.
Many in the urban secular elites equate Islam with backwardness and
fear that their socially liberal lifestyle will be constrained as
observant Muslims from the Anatolian countryside gradually become a
majority in Turkey's cities. Both sides need to address these fears
and attitudes openly.

That is not going to happen if the constitutional court finds
procedural excuses to invalidate Mr Gul's candidacy, much less if the
army intervenes. The return of the military to centre stage, moreover,
would put an end to Turkey's stalled but still intact candidacy to
enter the European Union, exacerbating the already worrying signs of a
country turning in on itself.

The best way to resolve this crisis is to bring forward general
elections due by November. That should be the occasion for
re-establishing common ground rules and a common definition of
secularism. With passions at their current pitch, that will be, of
course, risky. But not as risky as the alternatives.
-- 
Yoshie