A democracy I would rather not have
By Dr Hussein Tahiri
10/12/2008 00:00:00
Turkey is often hailed by many countries, especially in the West, as a great democracy and a country that has implemented democratic principles. It is often labeled as the only Islamic country with democratic values.
We continually hear from American and European leaders praising Turkey’s democracy. On 29 June 2004, in a speech in Istanbul President George W. Bush said, ‘Turkey is a strong, secular democracy, a majority Muslim society, and a close ally of free nations. Your country [Turkey], with 150 years of democratic and social reform, stands as a model to others, and as Europe’s’ bridge to the wider world.’[1] Even U.S. President-elect Obama and his team as recently as October 2008, described Turkey as an advanced democracy. Barack Obama and his vice presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden in their paper on major foreign, economic and domestic policies seeking a rapprochement with Turkey stated, ‘The result is that this strategically important NATO ally [Turkey], the most advanced democracy in the Muslim world, is turning against the West’.[2] Many European leaders have also echoed similar views.
History of democracy goes back to 508 BC when Cleisthenes of Athens in a radical change reordered the constitution to ‘take the people into partnership’.[3] However, the West, particular Western Europe and the United States of America have come to be known as the ‘cradle of democracy’, particularly the modern forms of democracy. One might think that they perhaps would understand better than anyone else which system is democratic and which is not. Certainly, they have created a perception among many people in the world that they have such an understanding. Therefore, if they call Turkey a ‘great’ or ‘advanced’ democracy they must be right. Who are we to question the forefathers of democracy?
Unfortunately democracy is often misunderstood and misused. The West uses it to appease non-democratic countries to get their support and advance their national interests. Dictators use it to appease their own people, undo their opponents and gain support of the West to gain legitimacy.
Democracy has many forms and can be used in different contexts but its meaning is never so broad and ambiguous that allows dictators and non-democratic elements to abuse it. Broadly speaking democracy is a political organisation that accords power to the people and allows ordinary citizens to influence public decisions.[4] The US Department of State’s Website states, ‘In the dictionary definition, democracy “is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.”’[5] It further elaborates, ‘In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”’ Therefore, democracy stems from people’s free will and the measure for a democratic system should be based on this free will. Free will and democracy are intertwined. Democracy sets up a framework and a set of principles for freedom. As the U.S. State Department has rightly put it, ‘democracy is the institutionalization of freedom.’[6]
Democracy is the rule of majority but it in no way oppresses the minority. The fundamental elements of all modern democracies are majority rule with appropriate safeguards for individual and minority rights. Again as the U.S. State Department put it, ‘The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.’[7]
If we apply this test to Turkey (and we must do as it claims to be a democratic country) it will certainly fail the test of a democratic system. Which democracy bans the existence and identity of its about 20 million citizens? Which democracy deprives about 20 millions of its citizens from the basic human rights, the right to speak their mother tongue - which is considered a very basic human rights? Which democracy is adamant that legitimate demands of a significant numbers of its citizens can only be resolved through force and by using military means? Turkey does.
Turkey uses an argument that all citizens are equal before the law and therefore it is against ethnic – specific policies. On 25 October 2008, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaking at the congress of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in eastern province of Dersim (Tunceli) said that his party is against ethnic, regional and religious nationalism. He continued ‘Everyone is free in their beliefs. We are at equal distance to all belief groups as a democratic, secular and social state of law. No one can divert us from such an understanding’.[8] If this is the case, why then is Turkey based on Turkish ethnicity? Why is Turkish nationalism nurtured and promoted by the Turkish state? Why is Turkish the only language allowed to flourish and every other language is banned in education? Why on every Kurdish mountain in Turkey it is written ‘what an honour to be a Turk’? If this is not ethnic nationalism then what is it?
It seems that Erdogan wants to prove the democratic credential of Turkey by proposing an ‘innovative’ idea. In his visit to the province of Hakkari on 02 November 2008, he said, “What have we said? We have said, ‘One nation, one flag, one motherland and one state. They [those who advocate Kurdish rights] are opposed to this. Those who oppose this should leave [Turkey]”.[9] This is a new democratic solution Turkey proposes to resolve the Kurdish problem, get rid of them all.
It is interesting to note that Erdogan is asking the Kurds who have lived in Kurdistan for over 4,000 years to leave their homeland. He ignores the fact that Kurdistan has been occupied by Turkey and the Kurds have never been asked if they want to be a part of Turkey.
To further test Turkish democracy it would suffice to look at the European Union Accession report titled, ‘Turkey 2008 Progress Report’ published on 05 November 2008. The report is an indictment of Turkish democracy. It states, ‘The armed forces have continued to exercise significant political influence via formal and informal mechanisms.’[10] It is for long believed that Turkey has been effectively run by the military and the elected government has been powerless when it has gone against the wishes of the military. This report is the confirmation of this long held view.
Impartiality of the judicial system is a criterion of any democratic system. The report expresses concerns about ‘the independence and impartiality of the judiciary’.[11] It further reveals human rights violations by the Turkish state. The report outlines, ‘During the report period, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a total of 266 judgments that Turkey had violated the ECHR.’[12]
Looking at the above evidence it would be very difficult for anyone to argue that Turkey is a democratic country, lets alone a ‘great’ or ‘advanced’ democracy. It is time to be honest with ourselves, stop hypocrisy and demand reforms that would make Turkey a truly democratic country; a country that would be at peace with itself and respect the rights of all its citizens.
Dr. Hussein Tahiri is the author of "The Structure of Kurdish Society and the Struggle for a Kurdish State". He is a commentator on Middle Eastern affairs. He is currently an Honourary Research Associate with the School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University, Australia.
Endnotes
1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040629-4.html, accessed on 08 November 2008.
2. Turkish Daily News, http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=-639375, 24 October 2008, accessed on 08 November 2008.
3. Graham Maxxox, Australian Democracy in theory and Practice, Sydney, Longman, 2000, page. 76.
4. Ibid.
5. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm, accessed 11 November 2008.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Source: Yeni Safak (Turkey), October 29, 2008.
9. AYSE KARABAT DIYARBAKIR, 04 November 2008, Tuesday, http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=157780, accessed on 08 November 2008.
10. The European Union Accession report titled, ‘Turkey 2008 Progress Report’ published on 05 November 2008, p. 9.
11. Ibid, p.10.
12. Ibid, p.11.
Reference: Kurdish Media
By Dr Hussein Tahiri
10/12/2008 00:00:00
Turkey is often hailed by many countries, especially in the West, as a great democracy and a country that has implemented democratic principles. It is often labeled as the only Islamic country with democratic values.
We continually hear from American and European leaders praising Turkey’s democracy. On 29 June 2004, in a speech in Istanbul President George W. Bush said, ‘Turkey is a strong, secular democracy, a majority Muslim society, and a close ally of free nations. Your country [Turkey], with 150 years of democratic and social reform, stands as a model to others, and as Europe’s’ bridge to the wider world.’[1] Even U.S. President-elect Obama and his team as recently as October 2008, described Turkey as an advanced democracy. Barack Obama and his vice presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden in their paper on major foreign, economic and domestic policies seeking a rapprochement with Turkey stated, ‘The result is that this strategically important NATO ally [Turkey], the most advanced democracy in the Muslim world, is turning against the West’.[2] Many European leaders have also echoed similar views.
History of democracy goes back to 508 BC when Cleisthenes of Athens in a radical change reordered the constitution to ‘take the people into partnership’.[3] However, the West, particular Western Europe and the United States of America have come to be known as the ‘cradle of democracy’, particularly the modern forms of democracy. One might think that they perhaps would understand better than anyone else which system is democratic and which is not. Certainly, they have created a perception among many people in the world that they have such an understanding. Therefore, if they call Turkey a ‘great’ or ‘advanced’ democracy they must be right. Who are we to question the forefathers of democracy?
Unfortunately democracy is often misunderstood and misused. The West uses it to appease non-democratic countries to get their support and advance their national interests. Dictators use it to appease their own people, undo their opponents and gain support of the West to gain legitimacy.
Democracy has many forms and can be used in different contexts but its meaning is never so broad and ambiguous that allows dictators and non-democratic elements to abuse it. Broadly speaking democracy is a political organisation that accords power to the people and allows ordinary citizens to influence public decisions.[4] The US Department of State’s Website states, ‘In the dictionary definition, democracy “is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.”’[5] It further elaborates, ‘In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”’ Therefore, democracy stems from people’s free will and the measure for a democratic system should be based on this free will. Free will and democracy are intertwined. Democracy sets up a framework and a set of principles for freedom. As the U.S. State Department has rightly put it, ‘democracy is the institutionalization of freedom.’[6]
Democracy is the rule of majority but it in no way oppresses the minority. The fundamental elements of all modern democracies are majority rule with appropriate safeguards for individual and minority rights. Again as the U.S. State Department put it, ‘The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.’[7]
If we apply this test to Turkey (and we must do as it claims to be a democratic country) it will certainly fail the test of a democratic system. Which democracy bans the existence and identity of its about 20 million citizens? Which democracy deprives about 20 millions of its citizens from the basic human rights, the right to speak their mother tongue - which is considered a very basic human rights? Which democracy is adamant that legitimate demands of a significant numbers of its citizens can only be resolved through force and by using military means? Turkey does.
Turkey uses an argument that all citizens are equal before the law and therefore it is against ethnic – specific policies. On 25 October 2008, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaking at the congress of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in eastern province of Dersim (Tunceli) said that his party is against ethnic, regional and religious nationalism. He continued ‘Everyone is free in their beliefs. We are at equal distance to all belief groups as a democratic, secular and social state of law. No one can divert us from such an understanding’.[8] If this is the case, why then is Turkey based on Turkish ethnicity? Why is Turkish nationalism nurtured and promoted by the Turkish state? Why is Turkish the only language allowed to flourish and every other language is banned in education? Why on every Kurdish mountain in Turkey it is written ‘what an honour to be a Turk’? If this is not ethnic nationalism then what is it?
It seems that Erdogan wants to prove the democratic credential of Turkey by proposing an ‘innovative’ idea. In his visit to the province of Hakkari on 02 November 2008, he said, “What have we said? We have said, ‘One nation, one flag, one motherland and one state. They [those who advocate Kurdish rights] are opposed to this. Those who oppose this should leave [Turkey]”.[9] This is a new democratic solution Turkey proposes to resolve the Kurdish problem, get rid of them all.
It is interesting to note that Erdogan is asking the Kurds who have lived in Kurdistan for over 4,000 years to leave their homeland. He ignores the fact that Kurdistan has been occupied by Turkey and the Kurds have never been asked if they want to be a part of Turkey.
To further test Turkish democracy it would suffice to look at the European Union Accession report titled, ‘Turkey 2008 Progress Report’ published on 05 November 2008. The report is an indictment of Turkish democracy. It states, ‘The armed forces have continued to exercise significant political influence via formal and informal mechanisms.’[10] It is for long believed that Turkey has been effectively run by the military and the elected government has been powerless when it has gone against the wishes of the military. This report is the confirmation of this long held view.
Impartiality of the judicial system is a criterion of any democratic system. The report expresses concerns about ‘the independence and impartiality of the judiciary’.[11] It further reveals human rights violations by the Turkish state. The report outlines, ‘During the report period, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a total of 266 judgments that Turkey had violated the ECHR.’[12]
Looking at the above evidence it would be very difficult for anyone to argue that Turkey is a democratic country, lets alone a ‘great’ or ‘advanced’ democracy. It is time to be honest with ourselves, stop hypocrisy and demand reforms that would make Turkey a truly democratic country; a country that would be at peace with itself and respect the rights of all its citizens.
Dr. Hussein Tahiri is the author of "The Structure of Kurdish Society and the Struggle for a Kurdish State". He is a commentator on Middle Eastern affairs. He is currently an Honourary Research Associate with the School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University, Australia.
Endnotes
1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040629-4.html, accessed on 08 November 2008.
2. Turkish Daily News, http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=-639375, 24 October 2008, accessed on 08 November 2008.
3. Graham Maxxox, Australian Democracy in theory and Practice, Sydney, Longman, 2000, page. 76.
4. Ibid.
5. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm, accessed 11 November 2008.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Source: Yeni Safak (Turkey), October 29, 2008.
9. AYSE KARABAT DIYARBAKIR, 04 November 2008, Tuesday, http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=157780, accessed on 08 November 2008.
10. The European Union Accession report titled, ‘Turkey 2008 Progress Report’ published on 05 November 2008, p. 9.
11. Ibid, p.10.
12. Ibid, p.11.
Reference: Kurdish Media
posted by Xalid Azizi | 6:05 PM
|
0 comments
