Ayhan Bilgen

ARE EXCUSES OF RELUCTANCE CONVINCING AND REALISTIC IN A DEMOCRATISATION PROCESS?

Ayhan  Bilgen

It can be said that the reason Turkey is not taking any steps forward in the democratisation process is because there are organised groups who do not want Turkey to become a democratic country. The mentality is to introduce new reforms in order to minimise the pressure exerted by the international community, while on the other hand the fear remains that their hegemony is threatened.  The fear of sharing power with other groups renders the steps taken so far ineffective. Turkey does not tolerate people who believe that modernisation can be achieved by respecting individuals’ rights and the state does not tolerate people who think differently. The main argument that dominates the political arena in Turkey is that everyone must believe in one language, one culture and a state-designed model for religious practice.  People who disagree with the above concept are seen as a threat to the state. The military in Turkey have been using their power to intervene and to ban political parties, syndicates, newspapers, trusts and community centres since the early years of the Republic, as they are considered unacceptable by the official ideology.

It has been claimed that ethnic and religious groups are the biggest obstacles to the democratisation process in the country. It is alleged that democratisation will be misused by these groups.  The 10% electoral threshold, the new anti-terror laws and numerous other policies that have been introduced, are based on this fear.  This makes it almost impossible to enjoy even the most basic rights as this fear and oppression causes a degree of social anxiousness. The state believes that it has the authority to decide how individuals should live, what religion they should adhere to, what to wear and what languages to speak and learn. Chauvinism and the shallow side of secularism are serious barriers to existing differences and to multiculturalism.
It is thought that the state is reluctant to show a willingness to give opposing Kurdish groups a chance to disarm and join the social and political life of the country.  It should not be forgotten that the continuing conflict is the result of the harsh Turkish bureaucracy. After the recent incidents – the street demonstrations and lynch initiatives - most opposition leaders called for martial law. The approach taken by some representatives from the ruling party makes it easy for the military to manipulate and to gain power in civil life.

Turkey is keen to follow Europe’s example in its new attitude to individual freedom after recent terrorist incidents.  It is very difficult to enact new terror laws in Turkey, as opposed to states in Europe, as the media is not free. In addition, it should not be forgotten that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Turkey are not powerful. At military funerals, military representatives have announced that human rights activists should be attacked, thus claiming that the human rights activists are responsible for the soldiers’ deaths.

Until now there has not been a conflict between Kurds and Turks, and this provides a sense of peace, security and stability both in Turkey and in the Region.  It is also in Europe’s interest to help maintain this peace. 

The ethnic nationalism which exists on both sides will damage and weaken the democratisation process. This situation will automatically influence the Kurdish side to activate or improve democratisation amongst themselves.  Until now, it has been almost impossible to develop a political model that might help gain stability and trust.  The official ideology, whose existence is based on the notion of conflict with different ideological thoughts, is fighting hard to protect its existence.

The current situation in Iraq shows that it is likely that some groups in the region may be liquidised. 

I would like to end my speech by listing some important steps, which I believe need to be taken urgently - not only for Kurds but also for all people living in Turkey.

* The preparation of a new constitution based on collective agreement in which the current definition of nationalism and secularism is taken out.
  
* New arrangements should be implemented in order to free the judiciary from the government, the bureaucracy and the official ideology. The law has to be independent and not politicised.

* An end to the existing election law, the current Political Parties Law and the anti-democratic arrangements in the Parliamentary Law.

* The higher education administrations and the religious authorities must be more democratic and must be granted the authority to run themselves.

* The local authorities (mayors) must be given more authority and resources.

* If there is a threat, this must be discussed democratically through the parliament and the public must have an input.

* The ideological hegemony must be given up for political discussion centered on both economics and education.

* The democratisation and the European Union accession process must not be presented as if it is driven only by foreign influences; instead it should be presented as  part of the internal dynamics of Turkey and must seek support from the public.