Recent Stratfor Report: A Copy Paste of Conspiracy-2

A recently published report on Turkey by the US-based think tank Stratfor shows once again that it is not easy to comprehend and analyze the complex, sophisticated and multi-layered transformations taking place in Turkey.

The report seems to be, unfortunately, only a caricature of what is really going on in Turkey and instead of being a skillfully mastered academic endeavor, it looks like hastily drafted, biased propaganda material. Needless to say, it is not only full of biased and one-sided interpretations of complicated events but is also full of factual errors, mistakes that even an elementary student in Turkey would never make. One could write about the report in detail, but this would result in too long of a piece. Instead, I will try to focus on the major points and serious, factual mistakes.

First of all, the report arbitrarily makes (ab)use of the term Islamism. I do not want to write in detail about a term which has been discussed extensively, so I will cut it short and instead refer curious readers to my earlier writings. Islamism is a modern phenomenon. It is first and foremost a state-centered ideology. Secondly, it is a reactionary political ideology that emerged as a response to Western hegemony, imperialism and colonialism. Thirdly, it is focused on daily and partisan politics. Fourth, there is not much focus on the spiritual aspects of Islam in Islamism. Fifth, tolerance, acceptance of diversity, respect for pluralism and dialogue are not emphasized much in Islamism, to say the least. Sixth, secularism is an anathema to Islamist ideology. Seventh, generally, Islamists' understanding of democracy is not based on universal suffrage.

Misuse of term 'Islamist'

The report keeps calling the Gülen movement, under the direction of Fethullah Gülen, an Islamist movement but when we examine its discourse and worldwide practice the movement is almost in total contradiction to Islamism in all the above-listed seven major aspects. There is an unfortunate tendency among some journalists and scholars to label socially-active Muslims as "Islamist." But this usage is unhelpful as it blurs the lines between several kinds of Islamic understanding and practices, and instead of helping us analyze phenomena leads to the conflation of the term "Muslim" with "Islamist." This comes at the expense of ordinary but practicing Muslims. When examining the incorrect usage of the word, one ends up thinking that in order not to be called an Islamist one should either not practice the religion or jettison all its social aspects that are fundamental to Islam as documented by classical Islamic sources, mainly the Qur'an. If the author perused the works of respected American academics such as John L. Esposito, John O. Voll, Dale Eickelman, James Pictatori, Robert W. Hefner and Muhammad Ayoob, she would never mistakenly label the Gülen movement Islamist. We also need to highlight that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is not even a post-Islamist party, let alone an Islamist one. I call it a non-Islamist party, underlining the fact that some still mistakenly call it Islamist.

The report also claims that the AK Party views international politics through a pan-Islamic lens. This is an accusation voiced by staunch AK Party adversaries, some neo-conservative and pro-Israeli, right-wing writers. But these people have so far failed to substantiate their claims with robust and sound evidence. They simply cherry pick certain aspects of Turkish foreign policy and turn a blind eye to the fact that Turkey also has good diplomatic relations and economic ties with non-Muslim countries such as several EU-countries, Russia (now Turkey's biggest trade partner) and Georgia. It is even trying to develop better relations with Armenia. Some observers also forget the fact that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk established pacts with Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan and so on. Students of Turkish foreign policy know very well about the Atatürk's Saadabad Pact and Bahgdad Pact. His successor, İsmet İnönü also followed a multi-dimensional foreign policy. During the Cold War, everything was, of course, different and the Iron Curtain prevented Turkey from fully following a multi-dimensional foreign policy. Moreover, those who accuse the AK Party of following a pan-Islamist foreign policy seem also to forget that a leading ultranationalist, General Tuncer Kilinç reportedly suggested that instead of having an alliance with the West, Turkey should look towards Iran, Russia and China. Many ultranationalists are also disappointed with a West that does not share the same sentiments, and would not support a coup.

Those who wrote the report are also uninformed in matters of Turkish law and claim that the National Security Council (MGK) banned Necmettin Erbakan's Welfare Party (RP). It was not banned; it was shut down. And it was shut down by the Constitutional Court. The MGK has no such legal power. If the report was trying to refer to the de facto situation, then it should have directly mentioned military generals, as the MGK includes civilian politicians as well; Erbakan was also a member.

'Infusion of politics and religion'

The report also claims that the AK Party's vision infuses politics with religion. But this is again a groundless accusation. Could the writer provide any convincing evidence? Is respecting society's religious sentiments equal to infusing religion into politics? If that is so, every politician in Turkey and even our ultra-secularist generals are Islamists as well. If the author is referring to the fact that AK Party politicians are practicing Muslims she is missing two points. First, several AK Party politicians are not practicing Muslims, and second, many Western politicians are religious but no one claims that they infuse religion into politics.

Another claim of the author is that the AK Party has been more cautious about exposing its Islamist-rooted political vision. This is simply mindreading and should have no place in academic work.

The report also talks about an Anatolian class. It seems the author coined the term, but it should be noted that the term "class" is loosely used here, all the more confusing the complex phenomena it refers to, rather than explaining it.

The author mentions that Gülen advised his followers to quietly infiltrate the arteries of the system, but does not balance its argument by referring to what Gülen had to say about this. The author also gives no information on the context for these comments -- the Feb. 28 post-modern coup, when every single practicing Muslim civil servant was persecuted and sacked by the ultra-secularist military generals. Gülen explained that his words were diligently doctored and that he was simply advising practicing Muslims to keep silent so that they could avoid being treated unjustly, inhumanely and undemocratically by the military. The report unfortunately shows only one side of the picture and seems to claim that practicing Muslims began a power struggle out of the blue while everything was going perfectly well and normal. The report does not mention that for the past several decades leftists, socialists, Kurds and practicing Muslims were considered enemies of the state by the ultra-secularist, nationalist and staunch Kemalists who controlled the state. Several academics refer to them as a bureaucratic oligarchy. The fact that headscarved, adult Muslim women are not allowed in universities because of the decisions of the Kemalist powerhouse, the Constitutional Court, is telling.

Another claim the report makes is that the AK Party pushes Gülen's political agenda. This also needs to be verified. As it stands currently, it is only a claim denied by all sides.

Alleged AK Party allies

The report unjustly and wrongly claims that the lower courts are full of AK Party allies. This is only a groundless accusation. Even staunch AK Party opponents do not claim this but argue that some of the prosecutors that go after Ergenekon suspects are under the influence of the AK Party. What is more, the report never suspects that maybe these prosecutors who deal with the Ergenekon case are simply trying to uphold the rule of law, ensure justice or simply fulfill the duties they are paid to carry out. Science and Cartesian methodology teach us to never be sure.

Another artificial observation of the report is that Turkish citizens are debating over whether drinking raki is offensive to Turkish-Islamic culture. I wonder who is having this discussion. Even the Doğan Media Group, which openly dislikes the AK Party, does not make such a claim. Drinking alcoholic beverages, raki being one, is, of course, prohibited in Islam and everybody knows this. But, for centuries, no one interfered with people who consumed alcohol. During the AK Party era, some observers have noted that it is difficult to find alcoholic drinks in some conservative Anatolian towns, but this has always been the case. To cut it short, practicing Muslims are not offended when they see someone drinking raki; it is a personal sin and only God can deal with those matters.

The report indulges in gossip when it claims that free textbooks distributed by the Ministry of Education were published by a Gülen movement publisher. I had never before heard such a claim. Secondly, the books are published by several different companies. Thirdly, their content is open to public scrutiny and so far no one has voiced anything negative other than a few factual mistakes, etc. This claim is simply based on gossip and strengthens Gülen-mania and Gülenophobia, but otherwise has no place in academia.

The report also mistakenly claims that girls are permitted to wear headscarves in imam-hatip schools. That is not true. Only in religious classes are girls allowed to wear them, but in many other classes, in corridors and in the schools' gardens, they are not allowed to wear headscarves. The report also presents a biased picture of the headscarf and debate over imam-hatip schools.

When reading the report, one gets the impression that headscarves were always banned in Turkey and that imam-hatip institution graduates were not allowed to enter any university department they wanted even if they scored high on the entrance exam. And, all of a sudden, the power-greedy and Islamicizing AK Party wanted to change this situation that had been in place since time immemorial. Reality, however, is different from what is presented in the report.

Until the post-modern coup of Feb. 28, women with headscarves were practically allowed into every university and imam-hatip graduates could freely enroll in any university department they wanted. However, it was the generals who pressured everyone so that headscarved women would not be allowed on university campuses and so imam-hatip graduates could only study theology. The AK Party only tried to return to the original system. And, in the headscarf case, it was the ultranationalist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) that supported the AK Party in its attempt to amend the Constitution. Indeed, the MHP also voted in favor of it.

There is also an unbelievable claim that the Gülen movement says that the majority of Turkish students are enrolled in its private and public schools. Unless we are speaking British English here, public schools are owned by the state. The schools affiliated with the movement are all private schools. But then, there are only 150-200 such schools in Turkey and compared to tens of thousands of state-owned (public) schools, they make up less than one percent of the Turkish educational system, let alone being in the majority. This claim only fuels anti-Gülen paranoia.