One of the most common, despicable and fixed reflexes in Turkey is to repeat over and over again that “this nation will never improve,” and to accuse all those who believe the opposite of being either “romantic” or “credulous.”

Whenever someone comes up with constructive ideas, stressing the importance of micro-level approaches to politics, that person is immediately stigmatized and labeled “naïve.” The more you talk about macro-level theories, broad generalizations, the conspiracies of super powers, the underground traps of imperialism or conspiracy theories, the more appreciated you become.

The easiest way to become a renowned critic is to speak with as little delicacy as possible at the “macro” level.

You can win a vast amount of support in a short time by speaking about imaginary enemies and conspiracy theories, by basing your ideas on nationalism, humanity or religion, by grouping people as good or bad or as “with us” or “against us.”

It works. For in those lands lurk the seeds of the policies of fear. You may even be regarded as “deep.”

However, if you use the human factor as the basis for your arguments, if you talk about the impact of micro-economic projects, about the individual and their grievances and joys, and about the possibility of success through small steps, you are bound to hear: “Stop this nonsense! You are too romantic….”

There was recently a round table meeting in Istanbul, which attracted the participation of more than 30 philosophers and authors between June 3rd and 4th.

Most of the participants could easily be qualified as “romantic,” with totally different views but common concerns.

These are the people who have concerns about the existing discourse of enmity and hate, the increasing social and individual violence in Turkey, those who believe that something must be done to curb this trend, who want to prevent society from being disintegrated into “Turkish” and “Kurdish,” and those who argue that all of us are on the same ship.

The meeting focused on the following topics:

The Kurdish problem and its economic aspect, regional developments in light of international developments, Amnesty International and its possible aspects, and the victims of emigration; the women, the children and the young…

A shared statement was finally agreed on after a month of efforts and two days of heated debates.

The text began with “In our childhood, we were taught that the village over there is just like our own, even if we didn’t go and visit that village. However, we have to go and see what is there for ourselves. We need to understand human nature, and take mankind as the basis for our actions…” It went on to say: “No part of this country (Turkey) is more precious, more valuable or more important than the other. The pain of the other makes me bleed, and makes me grieve.”

“We are all on the same ship. The women, the men, the Turks, the Kurds, the Alawiyans, the Sunnis, the emigrants, the unemployed, the young with their concerns over their future, the minorities, the victims of violence, and those who feed violence naively…”

Unfortunately, over time we became afraid of our differences in this country. We couldn’t accept the ‘Other’ for who they were.

It was sometimes the “headscarf” that became ostracizing mark, sometimes “ethnic origin,” and sometimes their “sex”…

“We persistently strived to make “the other” similar to ourselves. We hated those whom we couldn’t assimilate and regarded them as “the internal focal point.”

“We divided people into ‘those who present a good example of the Turkish Republic and those who do not’ ”…

We stigmatized anyone that criticized, we made them afraid to think and speak. We banished them into silence.

Consequently, neither democracy reached its desired level, nor did we as individuals mature politically.

The permanent solution to the Kurdish problem will not come from abroad or from the top.

It will only be possible with civil initiatives, not military means. Through a new language of politics and humanity that will originate from us, that is, from the individuals, from a social texture embracing the individual differences…

The different voices of civil society have a common ground as well as “different interests and views.” There is an extremely fundamental point, which is often silenced, degraded as “romantic” and always overlooked for some reason:

This country belongs to all of us. We don’t have to become the same in order to form a common language and a democratic public domain…

We are not here despite our differences, but rather it is our differences that bring us here, together…

For this very reason, it is the intermediate tones, bridges and synthesis that we defend in the Declaration of Intellectuals, signed by 38 intellectuals and announced to the press and the public opinion this week.

A Turkey, polarized as Turk-Kurd, Kemalist-Religionist, or Sunni-Alawi, is not what we wish.

08.04.2006