Political Islam

Political Islam

The realization of the power of political Islam by the Western world occurred with the 9/11 carnage. Reactions to it ranged from the extreme of declaring crusade against Jihad (the so-called clash of civilizations) to the other extreme of courting Islam. Armed with Ataturk’s experience we know better that none of these reactions can eliminate the root cause of the problem. The only successful method is modern education. Militancy of Islam lies in its politicization, its relentless adherence to its dogmatic philosophy, and its refusal to accept others who do not believe in its ideology.

There is an excellent description of the contemporary world in The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World penned by Gianfranco Pasquino: “Political ideologies may have crumbled away, but they are not necessarily replaced by rational criteria and rational processes of decision making. More important, powerful religious beliefs are still used to shape and justify the behavior of rulers both domestically and on the international scene. Twentieth-century fundamentalism has acted as a drag on secularizing tendencies…..Muslim fundamentalism worldwide and, to a lesser degree, Jewish and Christian fundamentalism are contemporary phenomena that underscore the fact that secularization has not been completed. The proliferation of religious sects all over the world testifies to the resurgence of fundamentalism and throws doubt on the prospect that complete secularization will ever be accomplished.”

We are of course familiar with the sad state of religion in politics in Turkey, but even in the US, political speeches are interspersed with subtle or direct references to the scripture. Policies are based on the beliefs of politicians. President Bush said in a speech in Istanbul NATO Summit of 2004, “Democratic societies should welcome, not fear, the participation of the faithful”. President Carter’s excellent book Our Endangered Values demonstrates how pervasive and intertwined these two concepts are in the American political system. After having complained on page 3 “these religious and political conservatives have melded their efforts, bridging the formerly respected separation of church and state”, he states on page 6 “I must acknowledge that my own religious beliefs have been inextricably entwined with the political principles I have adopted”. The late US Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in a minority opinion “The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned”. So the U.S. Administration, being comfortable with mixing religion with politics at home, does not see anything wrong with the application of the same policy in other countries. Unfortunately, the American public opinion does not differ much either from the Administration’s religion-in-politics policy. In a recent poll carried out by the Associated Press/Ipsos the ratio of Americans who think that religion should not influence political leaders and their decisions is only 37%. This ratio is 75% in the UK, Germany and Spain.

Proponents of democracy rely on the Western experience as a solution. The Christian world found a modus vivendi for the co-existence of the religious authority and the public sovereignty, without either of them accepting the supremacy of the other. Although this so-called “Victorian Compromise” did not achieve the absolute and complete separation of Church and state, it struck a deal for the two powers to tolerate each other. This is a balance between two equal powers rather than a real separation of powers. The theory goes that democracy would allow also in the Islamic world equal participation of religious establishment in the decision making process and absorb rather than isolate the religion, as a function of the democratic process. After all, why could not there be an Islamic Democratic Party like a Christian Democratic Party? It is naïve to think that once in power a religiously oriented party will observe the principle of separation of powers. We witness the contrary all over the world. Islam in particular does not accept any sharing with, let alone surrendering to, public sovereignty.

The question should not be whether Islam can embrace modernization and democracy, but whether Muslims can embrace liberty and sovereignty as individuals. The answer to that question lies in replacing the religious teaching with a rational educational system. Reformation of minds must come first, before the reformation of religion. Teaching religion as a dogma must cease. Minds should be liberated from superstitions by Humanistic education and science. We must therefore formulate a policy as a counter force to Islamic fundamentalism as follows: not cultures or religions, but the intellect and science make up the civilization; and, civilization is the common heritage of mankind; it is universal in which everyone must participate. The singularity of civilization will bring peace, provided that all people are given the chance to secular education and a rational way of thinking. Are not these Ataturk’s words? Don’t these words summarize Ataturk’s political philosophy?

Eighty years of Turkish experience should have been an example for the world. Islamists take advantage of the war on Islamic fundamentalists, and try to promote Western style Islamic secularism under the disguise of democracy. Islamists argue that if you all want Westernization and democracy then Western democracy, including Western style secularism, should apply. Islamists are trying to redefine laicism as secularism. Islamists are not modernizing Islam, they are Islamicizing modernity. It looks as if the Islamists caught the Turkish modernists as well as the Western world by their tail. The West is not aware that the promotion of Western style secularism, of moderate Islam, and of democratic Islam, in fact legitimizes the role of Islam in politics, thus helping Islamists to come to power. That is why the war on “terror” is unsuccessful. The West is not aware that once in power Islam by virtue of its dogma will rule the daily life of individuals, i.e. sovereignty will belong to God not to the people. Only those enlightened by Ataturk’s philosophy are aware of what is going on.
October 12, 2006

Militant Islam and Atatürk’s political philosophy

Militant Islam and Atatürk’s political philosophy

The following excerpts from a paper presented at the 25th Energy Conference organized by the Global Foundation, Inc. on “Addressing Vulnerabilities: Science & Technology in Secure Energy Systems” in October 2002 in Washington DC are reproduced with his permission because of their relevance to the topic discussed in this issue.

“The antithesis of individual liberty, as the history abundantly taught us, is traditionalism, which gradually evolves into a dogmatic radicalism. Traditionalism against liberty has been encountered over the centuries of progress within the compound of Christendom, through the agonizing period of Reformation and Enlightenment. Nevertheless, peace was finally found in the tolerance achieved through the Victorian compromise. This compromise was, and still is, simply the coexistence of Church and public sovereignty, in other words the co-existence of traditionalism and modernity. This otherwise called tolerance served well to avoid obscurantism and violence, and to open the way to progress and modernity in the West. Although a complete superiority of civil order over the religious order was not achieved, this formula enabled the masses to think for themselves and revolt against the king, not against the religion, when they thought he misused his religious authority. William Ebenstein of Princeton allegorically wrote in Introduction to Political Philosophy “With the head of Charles I, the doctrine of the divine rights of kings rolled to the ground. His fate warned all rulers that political authority is closer to the earth and the people than to God and heaven”. But as Thomas Jefferson rightly reminded us, “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own”. The peace found in compromise in the Christian culture did not necessarily mean an inter-cultural tolerance. Traditionalism having been brought under control in the Christian world the antithesis of individual liberty had to grow elsewhere. Jewish philosophy does in fact favor individualism. Buddhism, Confucianism and other Eastern beliefs while traditionalist are open to tolerance. Islamic philosophy was the only one apt to provide the antithetic forces to individualism.

Islam did not have the benefit of the same reformation experience, as the West did. In the social order of Islam, the political authority is the same as the religious authority. The political authority, being divine, is supreme; it is unchallengeable. People cannot possibly be discontent with religion, thus with authority. In the absence of individual liberty, a self-analysis, course correction, or regeneration does not occur. Furthermore, there is no clergy in Islam, there was no accumulation of theological wisdom and reformation. Deprived of progress, Muslims found themselves in economic despair in the midst of a prospering world. The society necessarily became antagonistic to progressive and modernizing foreign cultures.”

“The real enemy of our liberty is unequivocally the state of mind, the ideology of Islamic fundamentalists. I find S. Huntington wrong, who writes in his famous Clash of Civilizations 'The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam'. He equates civilizations with cultures. Although he later agrees that civilization is 'singular', he still believes that cultures clash. Whereas there is sufficient evidence in history that cultures interact, they cross-fertilize may it be through armed conflict. It is the interaction of cultures that evolves into a universal contemporary civilization. Basically religions, which are the prominent part of cultures, do not cross-fertilize, because their puritans and fundamentalists cause human suffering.”

“The beginning of the modern day radicalization of Islam goes back to early last century, to the demise of the Ottoman Empire together with its earthly leader the Sultan and its spiritual leader the Caliph. The Muslim world, having unexpectedly lost leadership, was unprepared to lead itself; it fell into the hands of colonial powers. Turkey’s success over colonialism, sultanate and Caliphate should have motivated the Arabs also to challenge their leaders and Europe. Instead, they sought comfort in British colonial administration. This was a golden opportunity for Britain to promote modernization. But, as Francois Georgeon reports in his essay titled Kemalisme et Monde Musulman, after the 1908 constitution was declared by the Ottomans Britain of Magna Carta launched a propaganda campaign in Arab lands and other Muslim countries to the effect that constitutional rule was a Jewish and Masonic practice and it would not be religiously acceptable. Britain did not want liberty in the oil rich lands; she wanted to colonize them and to exploit their riches. Thus, she bears a heavy responsibility for the creation of Arabic fundamentalism. The inability of Arabs to reform and the consequent humiliation gave way to fundamentalism. A dogmatic teaching of fundamentalism took roots in the course of the last century during which the rest of the world was preoccupied with wars against other antithetic ideologies, namely National Socialism and communism. Once these political and economic ideologies were eliminated by the end of the last century the playing field became vacant for another ideology: the radical Islam as a religious ideology. That is why not the establishment of the state of Israel or the ensuing Palestinian struggle after the collapse of Nazism, but the 1991 Gulf War after the demise of communism in 1989 brought to the surface the violence of Islamic fundamentalists.

It is important to mention also that not only the traditionalism of Islam versus the modernity of Christianity, also the missionary and evangelical policies of the Church and, as identified by Pasquino, religious bias of governments led some Muslims to turn to the puritan basics of their religion. As recently as during the Serb atrocities in the Balkans British Prime Minister Major in a letter dated May 2, 1993 to his Minister of State Hogg outlined the British policy over Bosnia “in the best interest of a stable Europe in the future, whose value system is and must remain based on Christian Civilization and ethic” and claimed that this view was felt in other European and North American governments. Helmuth Khol’s statement that European Union is a Christian club is also still fresh in memories. It would be wiser for Europe to base its unity on economic, political and other realities than on medieval beliefs. But we need not look far. Political speeches in the U.S. are interspersed with subtle or direct references to the scripture, policies are based on the beliefs of the politicians, public funds are allocated to religious organizations, including Islamic organizations. Under this ruling, four hundred Koranic schools in the US may be eligible for assistance to teach hostility against infidels. Why should we allow Muslims in the US to teach fanatic ideology, including intolerance towards infidels, if Arab countries do not allow us to require rational education in their countries?

The West has to recognize the subtle distinction that it is not the Christian principles that led it to success but conversely it is the liberation of the individual’s mind from religious traditionalism, and the public sovereignty rather than religious sovereignty that put the people on the path to progress. It is the conquest of the people over theocratic oppression and the victory of science over dogma that made the Western transformation possible.”

“The believers of Islamic democracy overlook the fact that Islam being the sole political power cannot accept the supremacy of civil authority, nor sharing it like in the Victorian compromise. Although the modest Victorian compromise served well in the West, there is not a shred of evidence that it can succeed in the Muslim culture. Once a religion based party comes to power by democratic election there is no incentive for it to observe the principle of separation of powers and secularism. A change in the political system without changing the principles of Islam will not change the supremacy of religion in public affairs. It appears that the coexistence of religious authority with civil authority in a Muslim society simply creates dualism instead of tolerance and compromise; religion still stands in the way of individual liberty and progress. The failed modernization experience of the Ottoman Empire throughout the 19th century is the perfect example. Although some civil laws were enacted Sharia remained supreme over civil laws. There was no victory of civil authority, and not even a compromise between the civil and religious authority. There was no triumph of rational thinking and of humanistic education over religious teaching. The lesson to be drawn from this history is that unless Islam can go through a fundamental reformation and accept the supremacy of civil authority, freedom of thought, democracy and equality of genders will remain a rainbow for Muslims. Democracy and absolutism of Islamic philosophy cannot co-exist. As it currently stands the Islamic philosophy did not go beyond the 16th century Machiavellian or 17th century Hobbesian theories that there is no equality among people, there is always a condition of war in which the stronger will survive.

Having identified the antagonist of our individual liberties as being the Islamic fundamentalist ideology taught in Koran schools, our counter offensive must not target Islam, but the education system in Islamic countries. The question, therefore, should not be whether Islam can embrace modernization and democracy, but whether Muslims can embrace liberty and sovereignty as individuals. Whether they can change their state of mind for their own progress and prosperity. The answer to that question lies in replacing the religious teaching with a rational education system. In other words, reformation of minds is easier than and is a necessary element for a reformation of religion.

Men make wars to settle differences that they create, women make and raise children for tomorrow’s wars, but children can be taught to make peace. We have to address the intellect of young Muslims (the term intellect is used here to mean the ability to reason and to make a rational judgment). Teaching religion as a dogma must cease. If religion is allowed to teach perpetuation of old differences, and to develop a static instead of a dynamic mind, it has no educational value. The great British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who quit Oxford because of 'strong clerical influence that prevailed at both Oxford and Cambridge' and founded the University of London wrote “Religion also hurts society, because it creates animosity against unbelievers and dissenters and subsidizes a standing army of ‘wonder-workers’, the clergy, who deprave the intellect” (Ebenstein). Dogma creates ideology and radicalism. Humanistic education and science liberates the mind from superstitions. An ideology could be conquered by opening up the human mind to free and rational thinking.”

“We may, therefore formulate a policy as a counter force to Islamic fundamentalism as follows: not cultures or religions, but the intellect and science make the civilization; and, civilization is the common heritage of mankind; it is universal in which all participate. The singularity of civilization will bring peace, provided that all people are given the chance to secular education and rational thinking. We need the courage to put this powerful political philosophy to use, and to open a political front and a political offensive in the war against religious fundamentalism, in addition to the military offensive already launched. The enforcement of this principle will necessarily be by instructive rather than by destructive military methods. More specifically, the target must be religious schools that teach, raise and train fundamentalist militants." 

“Now we come to the question of whether such policy can really change the tide in Islamic countries. The short answer is a definite YES, because we have a laboratory test and a clear example of its success in not too distant history. Early in the last century, in Turkey, religious schools were closed and rational education was made compulsory and the only educational system. Among many other reforms that radically changed that nation the educational reform alone was responsible for a complete transition from theocracy to democracy and modernity. The man who led the country to that radical transformation, Kemal Atatürk, made abundantly clear that the ultimate purpose of the change was for the country to participate in the contemporary civilization. He strongly believed that civilization was universal, it was the duty of all nations to contribute to the contemporary civilization; therefore rational education and science were essential. Atatürk’s recent biographer, Andrew Mango, wrote, “True, rationalism had been advocated by some of Atatürk’s predecessors. But few shared his absolute belief in the primacy of rational scientific knowledge, as developed in the West”.
October 2002

THE CONCEPTS OF THE TURKISH MODEL AND THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST INITIATIVE

A talk to the Congressional staff
At the Congress building on
May 25, 2004


THE CONCEPTS OF THE TURKISH MODEL
AND
THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST INITIATIVE


I have chosen to talk to you today about The Greater Middle East Initiative because I know it is under preparation for consideration at the forthcoming G-8 and NATO summits. Being Congressional Staffers you may have sought information or have already been bombarded by massive unsolicited so-called “instant expertise”, which abounds in Washington. I will also offer you some thoughts, the expertise of which is based on being an “insider” in the ME.

Whether in greater or smaller terms, the ME has been a problem spot on the map since the British colonialism started to take over the area from the Ottoman Empire early in the 19th C. We in the US have taken it upon ourselves from the beginning of the 20th C. -since WWI- to try to fix the ills of the area seeded by the British colonialism and festered by the Russian expansionism. These facts have been repeated so often that their importance lost their effect. But the psychological influence of this history on the local people should never be forgotten in any undertaking concerning the ME. Prescriptions to cure these ills have admittedly changed several times in the course of history due to changes in the area dynamics and in international power politics. The current Initiative also is understandably conditioned by the contemporary Iraq war and the war on militant Islam. I distinguish between these two wars because, like many, I do not believe they are originally related: The Iraq war is more related to, so-to-speak, the Smaller ME question; War on militant Islam is related to the Greater ME question. If we are embarking on the GMEI with the expectation that it will also solve the Smaller ME questions we are in an allusion. Having made this distinction I will limit my remarks to the GMEI and specifically to Turkey’s place in this Initiative.

Some homegrown instant experts and the current Turkish administration promote the idea that a) moderate Islam would be the counter force to militant Islam; b) as a secular and democratic country Turkey could be a showcase for moderating Islam. These ideas should raise several questions, including but not limited to the following:
1- Should the modernization of Islam be an issue of a formal international agenda?
2- Is Turkey an example of a moderate Islamic state?
3- Could Islamic states, especially the Arab countries, accept Turkey as a model?

My answers to these questions are as follows:
1-Should the modernization of Islam be an issue of a formal international agenda?
Any suggestion by outsiders to moderate or to modernize Islam is a non-starter. No religion -and Islam is no exception- is amenable to change, much less to any advice given by the believers of another religion. Firstly, such suggestions imply condescension on the part of the “suggestor”, and humiliation on the part of the “suggestee”. And yet we often read in the newspapers that missionary organizations are active in the area under the disguise of humanitarian assistance. I concede that this well-meant action is based on the presumption that Christian tradition is compassionate and by proselytizing the Muslims they will also be rendered compassionate. Thus their antagonism will disappear. I claim that conversely this would create an instinctive reaction to change and a hardening of Puritanism and Fundamentalism. The non-Turkic and non-Sinic Muslim nations are particularly sensitive in this respect. I mean the Smaller Middle Eastern Muslims. We cannot even try to have control over a modernization effort in Islam. Any change in Islam, or in any religion for that matter, has to come from within the authorities of that religion itself.

At any rate, there is no guarantee that democracy and secularism would follow a modernized Islam. At this point you might suggest that democracy and secularism should precede the modernization of Islam. If we encourage democracy and secularism prior to modernizing Islam, democracy will bring back Islam to power, as we know it. Modernization of the religion will be shown the back seat. Islamic rule requires conformity of laws and of their application to the Koranic dicta. We observed the outcome of recently drafted constitutions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In a society ruled by Islamic principles the Book governs the public and private lives in detail. You may compare the Koran to a constitution. While any religion in politics is undesirable for its traditionalism, political Islam is nothing short of autocracy. The exception of Turkic and Sinic Muslim countries is based on their cultural difference from the Semitic Muslims. This is the crucial distinction between the Greater and the Smaller ME. The question should not be to moderate Islam or whether Islam can embrace modernization and democracy, but whether Muslims as individuals can embrace liberty and modernity. To achieve this we should rather look for means of educating, thus modernizing the minds of these people, rather than modernizing their religion. Transforming minds is an easier task than transforming a religion. Once people are transformed they may attempt to modernize their religion on their own volition, without the bloodshed that happened during the two hundred years of Reformation in the West.

Turkish modernization reform was a case in point. Ataturk’s reforms were subtle than most foreigners and even scholars seem to have understood. The success of the public acceptance of the fast and sweeping reforms was that they were not aimed at modernizing Islam, but rather modernizing the people. However, Turkey benefited from two ingredients to achieve this modernization: the guidance of a genius of a leader in the person of Ataturk, and the adaptability of the Turkish people to developments.
-The tactical key to Ataturk’s success was to isolate the issue of religion, and to lead the people to modernity, progress, education, and rationality.
-The substantive key to success was Ataturk’s understanding of Turkish people’s culture and mind. He ascribed the modernization process to the people themselves at every step of it. He was aware that for a social development to be well rooted it must be adopted by the people, it must belong to the people. Like any social element, if modernity and democracy were to be brought about by force they will create a counterforce.

Therefore, there should not be any reference to Islam or to any religion for that matter, much less any reference to its moderation or modernization, in any foreign policy design of the US in the Muslim world. In fact, even a perception of any religious element in any US foreign policy should be avoided at all cost for it would produce an entirely opposite effect in some Muslim countries.


2-Is Turkey an example of a moderate Islamic state?
The last time I read the Turkish Constitution it read: “The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, laic, and social State governed by the rule of law, respecting human rights within the concept of public peace, national solidarity and justice, loyal to the nationalism of Ataturk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the Preamble.” The relevant preambular passage reads “In the understanding that …..sacred religious feelings shall in no way be permitted to interfere with State affairs and politics.”

Of course these provisions may have been changed overnight for all I know, since the current administration has 2/3 majority in Parliament (although the Constitution further provides that this Art.2 is unchangeable). Be that as it may, Turkey at this point in time is not an Islamic State. Not yet, anyway.

If we were to showcase Turkey as model to Muslim countries we should be showcasing the modernizing Turkey of 1920s and 30s. In fact, without any such effort from our side many Muslim countries and leaders in the past tried to take Ataturk’s Turkey as model and tried to emulate his modernization reforms: Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Tunis, Pakistan are a case in point. Instead, the EU and the US administration join in the proposal of diluting laicism in Turkey so as to conform Turkey to the Western understanding of secularism and most importantly to make Turkey a more acceptable model for other Muslim countries. The EU Parliament in its last report on Turkey found Turkey’s understanding of secularism not in line with European standards. Of course it is not, unless France is no longer considered to be part of the Union. I surmise that French delegates were out sipping their wine when this standard was under consideration. There is no secularism in France, or in Turkey. There is something more appropriate, especially for a Muslim society, and that is Laicism.

Statements like the one expressed by the EU are based on two facts: Firstly, a redefinition of Turkish laicism as secularism sounds legitimate because it conforms to the Western understanding of separation of church and state. Secondly, there is widespread ignorance of the distinction between laicism and secularism and of their history in the Muslim world.
a) The distinction between laicism, the term I have already mentioned several times, and secularism can be explained as follows: Laicism is the exclusion of religious authority over the public, while secularism is a contract of separation of authority over the public entered between two equals, church and state (called by some political philosophers the Victorian compromise). The former may be called a unitary, and the latter a dualist system. I illustrate them as CAIRA for Laicism, and CAIRA for Secularism. Where there is a wall between the Civil Authority and the Religious Authority in Laicism, and a balance between them in Secularism. The fact that secularism, i.e. dualism, brought about freedom and democracy in the Christian society does not necessarily mean that it would also do the same in an Islamic setting. The co-existence of religious and civil authorities in Islam inevitably results in autocracy.
b) The Ottoman regime that preceded the Turkish Republic was a seemingly secular state in its final seventy years in the Western sense. However, the timid, half-hearted modernization effort with its dualist approach could not save the Empire from collapse. Therefore, there is an historical example that secularism in Islam does not sustain democracy and freedom. But the success of the Turkish Republic proves that laicism does. Why then this longing for reversal to a failed dualism? As the old saying goes, If it ain’t broke why fix it?
c) If we can talk today about Turkey being a model at all it is because it has been a laic republic for the last seventy years, not because it has been an Islamic autocracy.

In defense of their attempt to dilute laicism, the political party currently in power in Turkey alleges that laicism suppresses religion in the country to the point that religion cannot be practiced freely, and it subordinates religion to the public authority. The first claim is not true at all. I can vouch for it as a first hand witness. Conversely, there is a subtle but uncomfortable pressure on non-practicing Muslims. The second claim however is true, and rightly so. Their target is really this second point. The proponents of political Islam want the religion to share the civil authority. There is no question that there is a great effort in Turkey to undermine “Turkish style secularism” i.e. laicism, by replacing the modern education system with a religious education system, and also by redefining “laicism” as “secularism” as it is understood in the West. The objective is to expand and reinforce the Islamist grassroots of the ruling party. The ultimate result will be the introduction of the religious authority into the political equation, into the public domain and private life of Turks. All the mental gymnastics to reinterpret laicism is nothing else than trying to sneak the powerful authority of Islam into public realm through the backdoor.

By supporting the Western style secularism and by showcasing Turkey as a model of modern Islamic country, the West is encouraging the influence of religion in politics without knowing its possible consequences in an Islamic society. Why adapting Turkey to the circumstances of the Muslim world anyway, instead of the Muslim world following in the footsteps of Turkish modernization of yesteryears, unless of course we have some ominous ulterior motives? I would have thought best we help Turkey to further its modernization efforts in order to keep it in our fold. Are we trying to introduce the heavenly authority of religion into Turkey for solving the worldly socio-political problems of the Middle East at the expense of modernization in Turkey? Are we out to promote modernity or religiosity in the world? We must have learned our lesson from the Green Crescent Project of 1970s designed to curb the spread of communism in the countries flanking the southern border of Russia. We need to wake up to the reality that the wars we are waging today are the consequences of that infamous misconceived project. Having assumed the responsibility of leadership in the world, we have to tread the waters very responsibly, thus with the knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of the people of the regions concerned.

Therefore, we must conclude that neither Ataturk’s modern Turkey can be a model for Muslim countries, nor should we attempt to “secularize Turkey in the Western sense”, i.e. Islamisize it, in order to mold it into a model that we wrongly see fit for Muslims.

3-Finally, could the Arab countries accept Turkey as a model?
The answer to this question is a short, clear, and simple NO. Not, because of three hundred years of Ottoman rule over these lands as some so-called experts claim these days, but because of the Turkish reforms early in the last century that abolished Caliphate, introduced laicism, and gave Turkey a western orientation. Arab rulers consider Turkey a traitor of the religion, as having forsaken solidarity with the Muslim world, and as having joined the lines of the infidel Christians. Even if we succeed in transforming Turkey into a so-called moderate Islamic state, Arabs still would not buy it as being Troy’s horse, or a western wolf in a lamb’s skin. If you also factor in the difference in ethnicity and culture between the Arabs and the Turks you may as well show them Israel as a model, which at least has common ethnicity and destiny with the Arabs. At any rate, Middle Eastern countries are no USA. Our society may look for models to emulate or even to compete with. This does not mean that we should assume that Muslim societies are also so-called “role model” societies. In a Muslim world there is heavy reliance on communal leadership, there is blind obedience, and there is fatalism. A model is considered foreign, if not resented. It is this feeling of resentment that left the Muslim societies behind the Enlightenment, and then the Industrialization.

My conclusion is that we should meticulously avoid making any reference to religion in general, to Islam in particular, and to the Turkish model, whether as the modern Turkey of past years or as the envisaged Islamic Turkey, in a GMEI or in any other international initiative that may be considered for the future of the ME. The solution for the modernization of Muslim countries lies elsewhere, it lies in rational education. But this subject can be the theme of a separate discussion in itself. If there should be a GMEI at all it should include concepts other than the ones discussed here, among which modernization of education and gender equality must be the cornerstones. And, first and foremost we have to educate ourselves about the idiosyncrasies of the people of the region in question, where they differ even between the Greater and the Smaller sense.
May 2004

Archaic Dogma or Rational Progress

Archaic Dogma or Rational Progress

Turkey is currently engulfed by a debate over religious education as it frequently was since WWII. The government is intent to increase the number and hours of already practiced Koranic courses in public schools. The intellectuals objected to it. The President pleaded with the religious authority in the government  to review that proposal. The proposal and the objections to it are not an isolated incident, they should be assessed in the perspective of history.

Opponents of the proposal blame this controversy on the Islamic affiliation of the ruling party. While this is obvious, it is not however unique to this government to work on extending the depth and breadth of religious education. The burden is not solely on the current administration. The roots of this controversy lie in the policies and politics of predecessor governments and political parties, which formed the public opinion over the course of fifty-five years. The current administration is committed to deliver more religious education to the people who elected them. It started in 1948 when the government of I. Inonu (named the National Leader on the same day Ataturk was named Expired! Leader), comrade in arms of Ataturk, and the Republican Party founded by Ataturk introduced courses on religion in public schools, for the sake of attracting the votes of opposing anti-reformist groups. This political ploy continued with an increasing intensity from election to election, thus from government to government. Once the founding of religion-oriented political parties became possible by rescinding in 1991 Article 163 of the Constitution, politicians could now declare “If Koran courses and Imam schools are in contravention of the Unitary Education Statute, the problem is not with religious education, it is with that law”(Demirel); and, “Democracy is only a means for us to achieve the system we want. The republican era forced Kemalism on people as if it is a religion” (Erdogan). Although not even a single Ottoman Sultan went to Hadj many Prime Ministers, starting with Ozal, went to Hadj in a showlike fashion. Promotion of religion and religious education became a political agenda and an administrative function.

During the fifteen years of reforms led by Ataturk from 1923 to 1938 literacy grew from approximately 10 % to 25 % thanks to the change of the Arabic script to Latin, and education to Unitary Education system; in the following 65 years literacy inched up to 80 %. The following is a random selection of the gradual reversal of the rational education system introduced with the advent of the republican era. Imam schools opened in 1949; People’s Homes (equivalent of community centers) that provided public education in 5.000 locations throughout the country were closed in 1951; Call to prayer was to be delivered in Arabic rather than in Turkish as of 1952; Graduates of Imam schools became eligible to enter higher education in 1967; Koran courses were introduced in elementary and middle schools in 1968; 80 students were sent to Al-Azhar school in Egypt with public funds in 1985 (B. Guvenc, Turk Kimligi, 1996); Theology school graduates were allowed to teach while denying this qualification to graduates of other schools in 1989; Mandatory courses on Turkish reforms of 1920s and 30s became elective in 2003. In addition to the introduction of religious education in publicly schools, an estimated 500 private religious schools are in operation. Many cultural centers were also converted to Mesjits (chapels).

As to the consequences of this emphasis on religious education: The Religious Affairs Administration had to increase its staff (paid from public funds of course) to 81.000 in 1998 in order to staff 73.000 mosques, which increased from 12.000 at the end of the Ottoman period (N. Bolugiray, Doruktaki Irtica, 1994); The number of Imam schools increased to 718, teachers to 18.809 and their student body to 511.000 in 1999 with an annual graduation rate of 24.000; The number of students studying at Al-Azhar reached 5.000 in 1994 (Guvenc); The number of Koran courses reached 5.500 and the student body 220.000 in 1994 (Bolugiray). It is estimated that about half of the universities' faculty is religiously oriented. Annual rate of scientific publications is 3774. A study published by the Turkish Ministry of Industry in 2003 puts the annual investment in R&D at $ 24 per capita. It is discouraging to compare these figures with those of other countries.

Now let us look at the other side of the coin in education. The total number of K-12 grade schools in the country is 59.000 and of teachers is 457.000 for a student body of 12 million (some 20.339 per school, 2.625 per teacher). There are only 394 public libraries in the country. Of approximately twenty million (1/3 of the population) of school age population eight million (40% of school age people and 8% of the population) is not schooled. Hence, average educational level of the population is 3.5 years of schooling. (State Statistics Administration Website)

Consequences beyond the educational field can be summarized as follows: During the first 15 years of the Republic, while there was a worldwide economic and political upheaval and while paying back the Ottoman debts, the annual average of economic growth was 9.4% without any foreign assistance. The average of the following 65 years did not reach that level despite innumerable foreign assistance and domestic and foreign debts. When polygamy was the norm of the supreme religious law (Sharia) during the Ottoman period the rate of polygamous families in Istanbul was 5% and in the rural areas 8%. Currently under the prohibition of polygamy these rates are 15 and 22% respectively (Bolugiray). While admittedly there may be other social and political factors influencing these adverse results in Turkey the quality of education must have been a major factor in retrogression.

All this Turkish retrogression occurred during the same 65 years in which many nations fought devastating wars. They rose from the ashes of those wars, and they became economic powers, contributed immensely to the universal scientific knowledge and art as never before, and came to be known as members of the developed world. Legendary economists like Schumpeter and Max Weber were of the view that the success of the capitalist economy was based on Christian values. That may be, but no one of sound mind ever dared to claim that the advance of science is also based on religious values. It is common knowledge that religious teaching is dogmatic, exclusionist, and not conducive to inquisitive thinking beyond the boundaries of human knowledge. Fareed Zakariah rightly observed in Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad that the key to development is political and economic reform, not religious reform; to emphasize a change in Islam is the wrong advice. I would add to that thought that emphasizing religious education in expectation of modernization of Islam is also the wrong route to take.

Even the co-existence of religious and rational education in the dual system of the Western world is proven to be a drag on development. Turks had a first-hand experience with that. Their modernization effort did not start with Atatürk. The last one hundred years of the Ottoman Empire was replete of failed efforts to modernize under a dual education system. In fact, it was failures in that long Ottoman orientation and failures that paved the way to the Messianic arrival of Ataturk. The Western world oblivious to this history and relying on its own experience is today encouraging Turkey on its path to Islamisation of politics, of education, etc. with the hope that Turkey will modernize Islam. Is this really compatible with the principle of the separation of Church and state?

Religion is also militant when it is fundamentalist, as the assassination of several intellectuals in Turkey since 1970s and the massacre of Sivas in 1994 demonstrated. The militant faction, even if it is the minority, has the last word in national issues. After all, the loudest voice, the most aggressive party, the most financially powerful group will have the last word in democracy. Even a question on the periphery of religion, like religious education, which does not address directly the religious principles, is twisted to a debate over religious freedom, and the interlocutors are branded irreligious or anti-religious. The religionists' slogan “Sovereignty belongs only to God” might ultimately overtake the Turkish Constitutional edict “Sovereignty belongs to people without any condition and reservation”. Renown social scientist late L. Lipson’s observation “The quality of every democracy is the quality pervading the mass of its citizens” is to be reckoned with. The latter was indeed the thought that produced the principle of Unitary Education in Turkey in the first place.

This religious trend in public education must be seen also in the perspective of population growth. Each Turkish generation that joined the population is further removed from the emotions, sacrifices, causes, and objectives of the republic and of the reforms. Not only because of the passage of time, but more importantly because the causes, the purposes and the spirit of the Republic and reforms were not adequately taught to the masses. It is not, therefore, far fetched to assume that the reversal of reforms will eventually become the national will. The results of each election held since 1950 is an indication of this trend.

The Constitutional provision “To elevate the Turkish people above the level of contemporary civilization” is no more than an aspiration of an idealistic, progressive, and patriotic portion of the population that does not want to see Turkey join the Middle Eastern society, instead of the European. This trend has the potential of keeping Turkey indefinitely in the group of developing countries dependent on the developed countries, and unable to defend its national interests on the international stage.
February 10, 2004

Union ? Which Union ?

Union ? Which Union ?

All Turkish governments of recent years, despite their different shades, pursued an insistent policy of integration with the EU, regardless of numerous indications that she would not be accepted for various apparent or fabricated reasons. The EU's signals kept getting louder and clearer over time; but Turkey did not seem to get the true message hidden behind the real criticism of Turkey.

Although there is truth in Turkey's claim that the EU is prejudiced against Turkey as regards Greece, and uses double standards as regards human rights, it is equally true that Turkey did not seriously focus, in the intervening period since her application, on doing her homework and cleaning her own house from being immerged in petty oldtime politics and in fighting an unprecedented terrorist activity. These problems in turn paved the way for the religious right to gain enough ground to come to power and complicate the political life even further, to the extent that the religious politics became yet another obstacle in Turkey's way to integration with EU.

However, there is another aspect that does not seem to strike the Turks. Does it not occur to them that these facts also provide the EU a pretext for finally getting the Cyprus thorn out of Europe's sore side? The EU is incessantly nagged by its problem child Greece over Cyprus. It cannot bring to order its spoiled child since it gave birth to it in 1821. Many EU members are aware who created the Cyprus problem, and who is still creating provocative incidents in relations with Turkey, following the same pattern of creating problems within NATO and within EU (Greece has the worst record before the EU courts for the implementation of EU Regulations). But the EU cannot bring itself to openly side with Turkey, may it be in the name of justice, at the expense of antagonizing one of the EU members, may it be that the member is a recognized trouble maker.

They are aware that uniting the two communities on the island under no matter which political formula will mean eventual absorption of the whole island and thus the Turkish community by Greece. And, this means seeding even bigger problems for the future. Having recognized the southern and not the northern Cyprus, then having explored every avenue to solve the problem for many decades over the Greek intransigence, they see no better solution than the partition of the island. The EU can achieve this justice by forcing the TRNC and Turkey to a de facto unity similar to the one that exists between Greece and South Cyprus. This is a solution without antagonizing Greece and with all the while condemning Turkey for acting brutally. Isn’t this what they are doing in fact by pushing TRNC and Turkey to a corner?

The EU cannot and will not do anything but look the other way while this fait-accompli happens. It will, however, merrily make the usual protestations and condemnations of the Turkish action. Having not recognized the TRNC the EU does not have an entity to condemn in the person of the TRNC. Thus, the EU will kill three birds with one stone: Finally resolve the Cyprus issue; Give the appearance of siding once again with its spoiled child Greece; Enjoy yet another opportunity of Turkey bashing. How ingenious and what fun will it be!

However, the initiating action of unification with Turkey should come from the TRNC, it should grab the opportunity and, without wasting any more time, end its misery of long exclusion from the international community. Just as the Hatay Republic did in 1939. In other words, Turkey should forget about the European Union, and Cypriot union; it should rather focus on the Turkish union.
Dec. 15, 1997