Cold reception

Turkish politics is interesting in that it is such a stark mix of an aspiring modern democracy and a body politic still willing to ignore some basic freedoms. It is not as much a state in transition from one to the other as it is a place where both coexist. This oppression takes many forms: journalists are regularly imprisoned, authors boycotted and prosecuted for criticizing the Turkish government; by the same token, the Turks embrace a strict Kemalist (secularist) approach through democracy that often does not allow them to publicly display the faith that most of them practice. It seems fitting that the crossroads of the east and west is divided in such a manner.

Turkey wants (and needs) nothing more than to join the European Union at this point. But the recent actions of Supreme Court prosecutors, and previously the army generals, threaten to push accession back onto the faraway horizon. The chief prosecutor of Turkey last month filed suit in the Supreme Court to strip Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Abdullah Gül of their positions as Prime Minister and President, respectively, and to disband their ruling Justice and Development Party (AK) on grounds that the party and Messrs Erdoğan and Gül are promoting Islamism and shari’a law in Turkey. All would be banned from politics for at least five years. The action, while not necessarily baseless, is destructive to the Turkish system and would provide little relief.

Mr Erdoğan describes himself and his party as center-right conservative. The parties that preceded his AK (the center-right has had to consistently re-invent itself in Turkey) have been traditionally more EU- and Western- oriented, something that continues to cause rumbles in secularist circles. Prevailing Kemalist attitudes dictate that religion must be shoved aside in all forms to pursue modernism. Turkey may choose this path, but it does so at the cost of EU membership.

Turkey’s secular establishment should reevaluate its motives, and perhaps more importantly, the consequences of its hard-line against Islamism. It is often overly wary of the West and the EU, and has dragged the country’s feet in the mud as a result. The administrations under Mr Erdoğan have been some of the most successful in modern Turkey, putting an end to the hyperinflation that plagued the country for decades, and bringing it closer than it has ever been to EU eligibility. A poll by TESEV in 2006 indicated that only 7% of Turks favored an Islamic state that implemented shari’a law, of that, only 2% supported shari’a’s harshest measures. It seems that the secularists have much less to worry about than they let on. They also cannot afford (and have no reason) to ignore the growing moderate-Muslim population; a group that is religious and wears the headscarf but that is also adaptable, excited about the prospect of accession to the EU, and looking for ways to reconcile their faith with the modern world.

With the proposed closure of the AK comes the disenfranchisement of the Kurds and further fractionalization of Turkey. AK is the only party currently capable of representing the entire country and remaining competitive with the pro-Kurdish DTP in Kurdish provinces. Providing the Kurds with a suitable alternative would be extremely difficult for the secular establishment.

Turkey’s commitment to secularism should be commended. But it should not come at the expense of democracy. The secular forces in Turkey must evaluate the consequences of a government-mandated AK closure, which would push EU accession farther, alienate the Kurds, inflame what has been a moderation in the country’s Muslim population, and disrupt economic progress. Messrs Erdoğan & Gül must be allowed to serve out their terms and participate in government as directed by voters. The future of Turkey depends on it.