Sunday, September 10, 2006

“Democracy is produced by stalemate and dissensus rather than by prior unity and consensus,” Rustow had stated as early as 1970s. Now that the Turkish parliament is back from vacation and EU talks are ahead of us, it seems necessary to remind at least some Turkish politicians and members of Turkey s state elite of this most fundamental statement. It needs to sink in that “dissent” is not a stumbling block in front of the ruling elite. Dissidents are not infidels and they cannot be treated as “traitors of the nation.” Just the opposite, we need disagreements and critical thinking now more than ever, since democracy can only develop with and within differences of opinion.  M is a prolific letter in this part of the world. There are certain M factors that need to be taken into account when taking a closer look at Turkey: First and foremost, modernization. Then, militarization, monologization and finally, masculinization of culture. As the country steadily modernized, westernized and secularized along a process of “hastened modernization,” in Serif Mardin s terms, culture, especially written culture has been centralized. Centralized modernization has brought forward an opening for an interweaving of voices and yet at the same time manipulated its own parameters over all other possible forms of expression. By monologization of culture, I mean the systematic eradication of discrepancy and diversity by standardizing, centralizing and controlling the political and cultural discursive field.  To this day, one of the deepest and most persistent flaws in Turkey s political history has been an almost knee-jerk reaction to dissidents, and failure to differentiate “dissent” and “disloyalty.” If a member of a certain political party happens to hold a different opinion on a certain issue, and is bold enough to voice this, he or she is immediately regarded with suspicion. Party loyalty requires total obedience.  It might be argued that the world of politics has its own rules and requirements, but the very same principle of “obedience to the state” is expected from the civil society as well. If a writer or journalist makes an unusual comment about this or that sensitive issue, daring to deal with those ideological hot potatoes that nobody wants to lay a hand on, once again, he or she is met with deep suspicion and animosity. There must be a hidden agenda somewhere, people think. Otherwise he wouldn t be speaking so critically. Is s/he speaking like this in order to look nice to Westerners? How deep is his/her commitment to this country or culture? What is the “agenda” behind this intellectual s lambasting of state ideology?  Confronted with such prejudices, critical-minded individuals in Turkey do not only have to inch their way through articles that limit freedom of expression and freedom of thought, but they also find themselves in need of proving their “loyalty” to the nation. And it is that part, that hurts most.