Tag: Turkey as the role-model

Turkey and Egypt: Where is the Model?

Turkey and Egypt: Where is the Model?

Moushira KHATTAB

The Turkish system of government has often been nominated as a model for the Arab Spring countries, particularly by political Islamists. For the past decade, Turkey has been governed by the Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP). However, the AKP describes itself as a conservative-democrat party that fully accepts Turkey’s secular system of government, which managed to carry the country from the brink of bankruptcy to a successful economy ranking 15th globally in terms of GDP.

Erdoğan was welcomed as a hero when he visited Egypt in early 2012, the first post-revolution visit by a head of government. He dropped a bombshell when he declared that he is in favor of a secular regime despite being a Muslim, much to the chagrin of Egyptian Islamists who have not yet developed their vision for the welfare and development of the Egyptian people.

Two years after the Egyptian awakening, ordinary citizens still do not appear to be a priority for the Muslim Brotherhood. Furthermore, the lack of a charismatic, unifying leader or a common national aspiration, such as Turkey’s EU ambitions, has left the country in unprecedented polarization.

Both countries bear witness to a similar struggle for equal rights for women. In Egypt’s case, the story is one of both success and frustration. Despite gradual advancements, women continue to be marginalized in both countries. Issues pertaining to women’s rights or empowerment were not a significant part of the debate in the run-up of Turkey’s 2011 parliamentary elections, just as they were widely disregarded in Egypt’s post revolution elections.

Political Islam is on the rise in the Middle East. Women in both Turkey and Egypt fear that their quest for equal rights will be derailed and their achieved rights threatened. Egyptian women were the first to get the taste of its impact. Two years into the Arab Spring, reality for women has been sobering.

The dynamics of the revolution have produced a very complex situation for women, as the rise of conservative political Islam puts the breaks on Arab women’s struggle for equal rights. Although they emerged as a formidable active voting bloc of nearly 23 million people, Egyptian women were systematically ignored by political parties and candidates, both Islamist and liberal, during the parliamentary and presidential elections. Women were also marginalized during the process of drafting the Constitution.

The post-revolution Islamist Constitution seriously threatens to relegate the status of women and widen the gap even more between Turkish and Egyptian women. Article 10 of this Constitution is the sole article that identifies women as a distinct group. However, it does not establish any rights for women. Furthermore, the state’s responsibility to guarantee equality between men and women was removed altogether.

On the other hand, Egypt’s post-revolution Constitution assigns a greater role for religion. “Principles” of Shariah remain the source of legislation. Article 219 interprets article two by effectively turning “principles” into the more restrictive “provisions,” which can vary according to the personal conviction of clerics who will have the final word over the laws that translate such broad terms. It gives a non-elected and non-judicial body authority over the legislature and democratically elected bodies.

The cause of women has been an issue since the outset of the revolutions and the “spring” has unfortunately turned into an autumn for women, or a spring without flowers. Two years into the Arab Spring, it is evident that Islamic conservatism limits women’s role in public life.

Egyptian women need to use their formidable voting power and political activism in order to maintain and build on their gains until they achieve their inalienable rights. Moreover, they will benefit if the ruling Islamists were guided by the Turkish example.

Will the Egyptian Islamists, who view Turkey as a model in economic development, consider Turkey a model in women’s rights? What’s more, will Turkey continue to be a model, or will the pressure toward more Islamization make Egypt’s Islamists the model, instead?

*Ambassador Moushira Khattab is the Former Egyptian Minister of Family and Population. This article was originally published in the Winter 2013 issue of Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ). This one is an abbreviated version of the piece.

via CONTRIBUTOR – Turkey and Egypt: Where is the Model?.

March 18, 2013
Turkey is both an alluring and a correct model

Aylin Kocaman

There has long been a debate about whether or not Turkey is a model for the Muslim countries of the world. Representatives of Arab countries themselves reiterate the need to base themselves on such a model. But a caption that appeared in the Financial Times the other day was particularly interesting: “The alluring but misleading Turkish model”!

The article claimed that it was wrong to compare Turkey with Arab countries going through transitional stages and emphasized that becoming conservative but dynamic and prosperous societies was a remote possibility for Arab countries. It therefore suggested it was meaningless for them to aspire to be like Turkey.

The analysis in question refers to infrastructure investments and the restructuring of the banking system and politics, but overlooked the most important point that makes Arab societies and Turkey one single body – Islam.

Turkey is a correct model for Arab societies. Why? Let us go back a little, rather than looking at the present. Turkey is the heir to the Ottoman Empire. An empire that ruled three continents had one very important characteristic; it sheltered all faiths and nations with love and friendship. Nations and faiths were always content with the empire’s policy of love and friendship over 600 years.

There was only one reason for that moral virtue; Islam. The Ottoman Empire was always determined to maintain the Islamic principles of affection, love, and respect that people have now forgotten. Since that inheritance was adopted when the Republic of Turkey was founded and the principle of democracy, another condition imposed by the Qur’an, was adopted, radical elements were never able to flourish inside it. Of course there are radical elements in Turkey, but their voice has never been strong.

That is why Turkey’s resistance to communist and fascist elements after the Second World War was also successful. Indeed, Stalin said that of all the money sent to support communism across the world, only that sent to Turkey was wasted. When asked why that was, he said that Anatolia was loyal to its faith. To put it another way, the fact that Anatolia adhered to true religious values, untainted by fundamentalism, meant that it was able to repulse even such a bloody communist as Stalin.

That is why radicalism and socialism have never prevailed in Turkey. As a Muslim country and a bridge between East and West, Turkey had to assume the natural role of mediator and reconciler; and so it did. Turkey was the place where the Western world, Muslim Arab countries, Shiite Iran and the Middle East intersected. Aware of this important duty, and as required by Islam, it has always employed the language of peace.

Neither the Ottoman Empire nor Turkey is perfect, of course. Many undesirable things have happened in Turkey. But that does not mean we should ignore “what needs to be done.”

Arab societies are genuine, warm and loving. But three things damaged the Arab world after World War II: the socialism that infiltrated Arab states, the dictators that shaped their socialist focus mixed with Arab nationalism, and various fundamentalist traditions.

It needs to be said that radicalism is a scourge in every society, every religion and every ideology. But if fundamentalism is practiced as a religion, then it becomes dangerous. Those fundamentalist traditions, and of course Marxist elements whose aim was to destroy religion, never permitted people in many sections of society to live by the true secular, democratic, libertarian and peaceful nature of Islam. Oppression led to revolt and degeneration increased, as of course did atheism.

It is because that harm was never done in Turkey that it is a model for the Arab world, not because it is perfect. The reason for the economic well-being in a 99% Muslim country is not the banking system and infrastructure investment and the like. There is only one reason for it: Turkey has preserved a loving and democratic conception of Islam, far removed from fundamentalism. That is why Turkey is an intermediary and older brother in the region.

Financial journals may have high hopes of banks and investment. But we are Muslims. If we seek a solution, we will look to the Qur’an. Allah imposes the condition in the Qur’an that all believers must be united. And He reveals a secret, that in the absence of unity “…there will be turmoil in the land and great corruption” (Surat al-Anfal, 73). So there is only one solution to this great turmoil in the world: Unification. In order to be a model for all countries of the world we must first open up the borders between Muslim countries first. We must establish a union of love in which visa and passport requirements are abolished and borders are purely symbolic. We must demand that weapons be destroyed, not just silenced. Muslims must abandon hatred and always seek to be united and then issue the same call to the whole world. Turkey is ready for the task. It is a most alluring and correct model for Arab countries. Not because it is perfect, but because it preserves the loving spirit of the Qur’an and desires union and brotherhood.

The writer is a commentator and religious and political analyst on Turkish TV and also a peace activist. She is a host on the Building Bridges Show ) and writes as an op-ed column for the Washington Post, Jerusalem Post, Moment Magazine, IslamOnline, Gulf Daily News and Haber Hilal in Turkey. Her FB page: https://www.facebook.com/kocaman.aylin.

via Saudi Gazette – Turkey is both an alluring and a correct model.

March 7, 2013
What Turkish Model for the Middle East?

At a time when many argued that democracy was incompatible with the Muslim-majority countries of the Middle East, the Turkish democratic model was always used as the ultimate example to the contrary. Developed in the backdrop of a ruthless military and a fiercely secular tradition, it provided a model that could be easily emulated by its neighbors, given similar societal composition and other commonalities that came with geographic proximity. But is Turkey the best democratic example for its neighbors to follow? The more I read about Turkey and its recent trajectory, the more I believe the answer is no.

In recent years, Turkey has surely witnessed remarkable economic prosperity. The days when Turkish inflation reached double and triple digits are long gone. Its economic growth rates have been among the highest of developing countries, with such sectors as apparel, food processing and tourism booming, along with slowly falling poverty rates across the country.

In recent years, however, Turkey has also witnessed a series of political transformations moving it away from the shining democratic model many once took it to be. Minorities – whether Kurds or Christians – are increasingly being sidelined and robbed of their rights and freedoms. Freedom of speech and press are unabashedly trampled upon, hundreds of government critics are behind bars, while according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Turkey imprisons the greatest number of journalists in the world. Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has become increasingly more autocratic, with ambitions to turn Turkey into a presidential-based form of government – as part of the ongoing redrafting of the constitution – to be able to run himself in the 2014 elections. And although the rewriting of the constitution has included all major political parties, if the so-called Constitution Reconciliation Committee (CRC) doesn’t reach a consensus on changes, Erdogan will put his own party’s proposal to a national referendum.

Turkey has undoubtedly come a long way from its days of military rule veiled behind the cover of democracy. It has hence refined itself as a better democracy than what it used to be, with a robust economy to go with it. Yet its democracy is still under test, as the ultimate challenge remains whether Islamists, whom continue to consolidate their power, will also further consolidate the democratic political system that allowed them to enter the political sphere or consolidate their own power within the system instead. This is, ironically, what many Arab post-revolution countries are experiencing themselves, albeit reached through a more dramatic transition.

Although many Arab countries, including Egypt, do not explicitly state it, they surely look at Turkey as a model to follow, but something tells me they do so more for its lessons in economic success and limited democratic model, than the more encompassing democracy we give Turkey credit for that post-revolution Arab regimes do not seem interested in anyway.

If only democracy were as easily crafted, accepted and spread as those Turkish soap operas, devoured by audiences throughout the Middle East and Arab World, maybe, just maybe, the region would be looking at a slightly more democratic future.

via What Turkish Model for the Middle East? | Eye on the East.

January 7, 2013
Is Turkey’s image declining in the Middle East?

Why would a person whose job is to improve relations with the Arab media and promote Britain’s position vis-à-vis the developments in the region travel to Turkey and want to meet with a Turkish journalist?

In this meeting three years ago, I asked this British diplomat why he had traveled to Turkey and wanted to meet with a Turkish journalist. His response was impressive: “Everybody in the Middle East, including businessmen, politicians, journalists and ordinary men, praises Turkey and its impressive rise. I wanted to see this country that amazes everybody in the region and understand how it has improved its image over this short period of time.”

This was something that anybody in the region would notice. Turkish soap operas were aired by several TV stations in all countries in the region; a growing number of tourists from Arab countries were visiting Turkey; intellectuals, businessmen and civil society organizations were getting to know each other; President Abdullah Gül and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as well as Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, were welcomed everywhere they visited and many people, from Morocco to Iran, were viewing Turkey as a model country. This growing interest in Turkey by the governing elites and the ordinary people in these countries was further evidenced and verified in all domestic and international surveys.

The Arab Spring, which has dramatically changed the usual clichés and models of relationships in the region, initially supported this constructive view on Turkey. Many leaders who emerged during this process declared that they were taking Turkey as an example. Turkey took sides with the people in Tunisia and Egypt; this policy paid off. Turkey has contributed to the resolution of the crisis in Libya as well.

However, the Syrian part of the Arab Spring has not only destroyed our relations with this country but has also negatively affected how Turkey is perceived in the Middle East. The most recent public survey in the series which the Turkish Economic and Social Research Foundation (TESEV) conducts every year on perceptions of Turkey in the Middle East shows that the positive image of Turkey is declining for the first time.

According to the survey conducted in 16 Middle Eastern countries in August, the regional average of those who held positive views on Turkey was 78 percent in 2011, but this declined to 69 percent in 2012. With the exception of a 1 percent increase in the Gulf countries, the positive perception of Turkey is in decline in all of the countries surveyed. The percentage of those who had positive views of Turkey fell from 86 percent to 84 percent in Egypt, from 78 percent to 63 percent in Lebanon, from 89 to 77 in Palestine, from 44 to 28 in Syria, from 71 to 59 in Iran, from 74 to 55 in Iraq and from 91 to 80 in Tunisia.

With the exception of Syria and Iraq, most of the people in the countries in the region still view Turkey as a friend. Turkey is also seen as a country that contributes positively to the process of change in the region. This is of course important. However, only 52 percent of the participants found Turkey’s policy on the Syrian crisis to be correct; 36 percent viewed this policy as wrong. The number of those who felt that Turkey’s influence is rising in the region declined from 70 percent to 61 percent, whereas those who believed that Turkey could serve as a model for the Middle East declined from 61 to 53 percent, the survey found.

What is more difficult than getting to the top is staying there? The current situation suggests that we are at a critical point in terms of preserving the positive image of Turkey. The improved image of Turkey in the region affects every aspect of life, including the economic boost from a large number of Arab tourists visiting Turkey, but it is also true that the decline of this image also affects not only the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) administration but also the entire population of Turkey. Therefore, it is essential to recognize this problem where a number of factors, including Turkey’s Syrian policy and its alienation in the region and the quality of its communication with the Arab world, have been influential and take the necessary measures accordingly. I will discuss this in my next column.

via Is Turkey’s image declining in the Middle East?.

November 12, 2012
Turkey calm in center of storm

ISTANBUL – For many years, strategists have debated whether Turkey would be a “bridge” or a “gully” between predominantly Christian Europe and the Arab/Muslim Middle East.

If Turkey were admitted to the European Union, it would be a bridge binding these two worlds. If it were kept out of the EU, it could become a gully separating the two.

It turns out that Turkey these days is neither a bridge nor a gully. It’s an island – an island of relative stability between two great geopolitical systems that are cracking apart: The eurozone that came into being after the Cold War and the Arab state system that came into being after World War I are both coming unglued.

The stresses are getting to everyone. The reactions range from the truly horrific murders perpetrated by the Assad mafia family clinging to power in Syria to the disturbing fight that broke out last Thursday on a morning TV talk show in Greece, where the spokesman of a far-right party tossed water in the face of a woman from the left-wing party on the show and then smacked another female panelist in the face three times.

The island of Turkey has become one of the best places to observe both these worlds. To the east, you see the European Monetary Union buckling under the weight of its own hubris – leaders who reached too far in forging a common currency without the common governance to sustain it.

And, to the south, you see the Arab League crumbling under the weight of its own decay – leaders who never reached at all for the decent governance and modern education required to thrive in the age of globalization.

Europeans failed to build Europe, and that is now a big problem because, as its common currency comes under pressure and the EU goes deeper into recession, the whole world feels the effects.

The Syrians failed to build Syria, the Egyptians failed to build Egypt, the Libyans failed to build Libya, the Yemenis failed to build Yemen. Those are even bigger problems because, as their states have been stressed or fractured, no one knows how they’ll be put back together again.

To put it another way: In Europe, the supranational project did not work, and now, to a degree, Europe is falling back into individual states. In the Arab world, the national project did not work, so some of the Arab states are falling back onto sects, tribes, regions and clans.

In Europe, the supranational project did not work because the European states were never ready to cede control over their budgets to a central authority that would ensure a common fiscal policy to back up a common currency.

In the Arab world, the national project did not work – in many, but not all cases – because the tribes, sects, clans and regional groups that make up these Arab states, whose borders were drawn up by colonial powers, were unwilling or unable to meld genuine national communities.

So the EU today has many citizens, but no single supranational nation state to which everyone is ready to cede economic authority. And the Arab world has many national states, but few citizens. In Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya and Bahrain, you have one sect or tribe ruling others by force – not because they forged a voluntary social contract with one another.

In Egypt and Tunisia, you have more homogeneous societies and a stronger sense of citizenship, which is why they have a better chance at transitioning to more consensual politics.

In fairness, in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya and Iraq, you have many people, particularly young rebels, who want to be citizens. They want to live in states where people have rights and obligations and multiethnic parties. But it’s not clear they have the leadership and educated middle classes needed to forge modern political identities out of atavistic ones.

One question historians will puzzle over is why both great geopolitical systems fractured at once.

The answer, I believe, is the intensifying merger of globalization and the information technology revolution, which made the world dramatically flatter in the last five years, as we went from connected to hyperconnected.

In the Arab world, this hyper-connectivity simultaneously left youths better able to see how far behind they were – with all the anxiety that induced – and enabled them to communicate and collaborate to do something about it, cracking open their ossified states.

In Europe, hyperconnectedness both exposed just how uncompetitive some of their economies were, but also how interdependent they had become.

It was a deadly combination. When countries with such different cultures become this interconnected and interdependent – when they share the same currency but not the same work ethics, retirement ages or budget discipline – you end up with German savers seething at Greek workers, and vice versa.

And us? The United States’ flexible federal system makes it, theoretically, well-suited to thrive in a hyperconnected world, but only if we get our macroeconomic house in order and our education up to par (or better). We should be the world’s island of stability today. But we’re not. As Mohamed el-Erian, the chief executive of the bond giant Pimco, puts it, “We’re just the cleanest dirty shirt around.”

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN writes for The New York Times.

via Turkey calm in center of storm – Opinion – The Times-Tribune.

June 17, 2012
gulfnews : Is Turkey a model Muslim nation?

Ankara should first match its deeds on democracy and human rights with its talk to claim a place on the pedestal

By Murat Onur

Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Image Credit: AFP

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

When members of Nato gather at a summit in Chicago today, the issue of possible alliance intervention in Syria is bound to come up — with the Turkish prime minister perhaps pushing the discussion.

Turkey is considered a model of democracy for a mostly Muslim country. It has urged the president of its Syrian neighbour to step down and the Syrian opposition to unify. Tens of thousands of Syrians have taken refuge in Turkey and last month refugees there came under cross-border fire.

“We have strong armed forces. … and Syria must be aware that in the event of a repetition of border violations, Turkey’s stance will not be the same,” said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently.

But is Turkey’s military really so strong, and is Turkey the democratic model that so many think it is?

If a country’s democracy were measured by the number of generals arrested, Turkey would be, by far, the most advanced democracy. Arrests of military figures have been going on for years but a new wave began in early April after police stormed the houses of several retired generals.

This is part of the investigation into what is known as the military’s “post-modern coup” of February 28, 1997 — in which the precursor to Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) was eventually banned on charges of anti-secular activity. Modern Turkey was founded on the principle of secularism; the AKP today describes itself as a conservative democratic party. It sprang from the Islamist movement.

The “February 28” trial is the latest in a series of legal probes of the Turkish military by an AKP-friendly judicial branch.

‘Ergenekon’ trial

The infamous “Ergenekon” trial, which began in 2008, has turned into a massive legal undertaking consisting of several cases. More than 250 people — including generals, politicians, academics, rights activists, journalists, and even students — are being investigated on charges that they belong to a clandestine terror network intent on overthrowing the government of Erdogan’s ruling party.

“Sledgehammer” is another case in which hundreds of retired and active officers are being investigated over an alleged 2003 coup plot against the AKP government.

Hundreds of retired and active officers are being investigated as a part of these investigations. More than 180 of them are in pre-trial detention. More importantly, around 60 active generals and admirals are behind bars, making up more than 19 per cent of the Turkish military’s top brass.

Many aspects of these investigations contradict the principles of democratic governance and rule of law. Most of the suspects are behind bars without any verdict in their cases. The Council of Europe recently raised concerns about the withholding of evidence from defendants at the investigation stage (often extending into years) which deprives them of the opportunity to challenge their detentions.

The European Union’s 2010 progress report on Turkey says the Ergenekon case and “several” of the coup probes raise concerns about “judicial guarantees for all suspects”.

Independent forensic experts also discovered that a significant portion of the evidence used against the suspects is forged or their authenticity is questionable. Those who write about such irregularities often face a powerful defamation campaign by the dominant pro-AKP media.

True, the Turkish military did engineer politics and shape governments in the past — carrying out four coups since 1960. Yet many believe the coup trials have now become political mechanisms through which those who are in power are subduing the opposition and attacking presumed threats against the AKP’s growing dominance in the country.

Having the second largest military in Nato and the longest land border with Syria, Turkey’s support will be crucial if the so-called “Annan plan” and its UN cease-fire provision fail to resolve the Syrian crisis.

Yet Turkey’s democracy and its institutions, including the armed forces, are seriously undermined by irrelevant accusations against military members and others, lengthy imprisonment without verdicts, indefinite pre-trial detentions, and powerful defamation campaigns against the AKP’s opponents.

The arrests of hundreds of officers — including members of elite special forces — by police counter-terrorism units and the humiliation of top generals by the pro-AKP media may weaken the morale and discipline in the armed forces.

Moreover, a military that lacks a fifth of its top officers may face serious challenges in supporting an international military intervention on the border.

The AKP-led government must stop eroding the rule of law at home by ensuring the judiciary and police function within the limits of democratic governance and the courts are not used to target presumed opponents of its ideology.

And the government should match its deeds on democracy and human rights at home with its talk about them abroad. Otherwise, Turkey may descend into the league of the world’s quasi-democracies, and lose its democratic influence in the region.

— Christian Science Monitor

Murat Onur is a foreign affairs analyst and political commentator on Turkey.

via gulfnews : Is Turkey a model Muslim nation?.

June 9, 2012