May Day, oh May Day

May 1st was a total disappointment for anyone hoping for a sensible reaction from the government to requests by the Labour Unions to celebrate Labour Day. It was a day that ended in more anxiety than anyone could have imagined.

I also became a victim of this anger and pent up frustration over how the government handles things. Late in the evening after the traffic had finally begun to flow through Taksim square, I was sitting in my local neighbourhood bar with some friends glad that peace had finally been restored to Cihangir.

It had been a long day for anyone involved in reporting on it - like myself - or those who were trying to celebrate.

While sitting there feeling relieved that the day had finally come to an end without major casualties (a cameraman I know was hospitalised from tear gas, but survived), I saw a new aquaintance sitting a couple tables down from me and decided to do the neighbourly thing and say "Hi".

As soon as I approached the table I was immediately harassed by his dining companion. This was the following coversation as I remember it:

"I don't agree with what you said," the female diner said one minute after being introduced to me for the first time.
"What exactly don't you agree with?" I said, NOTE: I had never spoken to this woman before in my life.
"What you said about the government having made an offer to the unions," she said.

Not being prepared to encounter such a hostility, I immediately went on the defensive.

"Well the government did make an offer," I said. (which was to hold the rally in a different place in the city, somewhere "that would be more appropriate without disrupting business.")
"But what kind of offer," my acquaintance said.

I then told the hostile female diner that "as a reporter I have a responsibility to not have an opinion." It was a stupid thing to say, but I just wasn't expecting to be dressed down so publically by someone I don't even know.

Upon reflection, I have wondered just how she could have had an opinion on something I've said when we've never even met. I imagined that the only possible reason could be that I had talked to a colleague on the telephone, and asked him why in their report they hadn't mentioned the fact that the government had made an offer to the unions. And that I thought the report was slightly biased because of this omitted information - I thought she must have over heard me, perhaps I had been speaking quite loud.

The whole issue has bothered me ever since, so much so that I have actually had to sit here and write about it.

My response to this mystery diner is as follows:

Yes, the government made an offer. The problem with the offer, which I did actually say in my live televised report on May 1, is that the reasoning they gave was not the reality. The government said that they wouldn't allow Taksim Square to be used for the celebrations because it would disrupt a work day, and the economy was in no shape to handle that. As it was, the economy took a beating on May 1 anyway, why?

1 - All stores in and around the Taksim area were closed afraid of unrest.
2 - At least 60 schools were closed. Causing a cost to those children who lost a day of study.
3 - The cost of 30,000 police and few hundred village guard deployed to keep people out of the square all day long ironically may have totalled more than the so-called cost to the Turkish economy, which I also said in my live televised report.
4 - The damage that it has done to Turkey in terms of foreign investors perceptions of what type of country Turkey is, is immeasurable.
4 - AKP have lost, everyone has lost.

I stated that there had been an offer by the government in order to present the context of why there was so much frustration from those who simply wanted to hold a rally for one hour, and perhaps seek some closure for the terrible events of 1977. I don't agree with what the government's response was, but I am also realistic in the sense that public gatherings in Turkey do sometimes descend into a separate issue - that's because I actually attend many of them. This doesn't make me pro-government.

I have joined all the workers protests on the streets in Istanbul in the run up to the social security reform bill, and most of the people there I saw were 20 plus in age. Not 17 year old university students. This does leave the question: What exactly is labour day in Turkey really about? And how is the government going to deal with it in the future?

We will see next year I expect. But to the lady who quite rudely shot me down before asking me why I had thought it important to point out the government's offer - namely because it does more to present the real politics of AKP and indeed the current state of Turkish politics - then I ask you to read this and next time ask "why" before you jump to conclusions based on a sound bite that you overheard without knowing what that sound bite was really all about.

I empathise with your frustration, I feel it too, which is why I delivered a report that may actually have added more context to Turkey's image abroad.

Turkey’s Christians are they really in danger? And from who?

At what point does a sensational sentence become more important than the personal safety of the subject it contains?

The recent case of Aljazeera English on “Turkey’s Unsafe Christians”, March 10, 2008, is an example. The opening sentence, “Christians in Turkey are living under a shadow of fear and insecurity due to a violent backlash by nationalist hardliners”, is a head turner, the reader is hooked immediately, it plays on our sympathy and compassion.

The report was shocking. It tells of a Christian missionary who is taunted by “conservative, nationalistic, religious angry young men who have a deep-seated aversion to being told to change their ways”, and was even kidnapped. This is sadly all too common in Turkey where Christian missionaries are seen by a staunchly nationalist youth as agents of the West sent to undermine the Turkish state.

The problem with the story is that it presents the argument as a religiously and culturally motivated one that is rooted in history: “Mistrust and hatred of Christianity has been embedded in the culture of the Black Sea region of Turkey for decades some say centuries.” It equates today’s nationalist youth with “the crusades and the First World War when the Christian minority in Turkey sided against the then Ottoman empire.”

This report then links this deeply rooted Black Sea nationalism with an horrific incident in a southern Turkish city over 500 kms away: “Recent attacks on Christians in Turkey have been very ferocious, including the torture and killing of a group of missionaries in the town of Malatya. Three youths currently face trial on charges relating to those attacks.”

The report failed to mention the recent arrests of over 30 members of an ultra-nationalist group called Ergenekon with alleged links to the Malayta killings and is believed to operate out of the Turkish Patriarchate, a Christian church in Istanbul.

Mustafa Akyol, an editor at the Turkish Daily News wrote on February 3: “It appears that the church might not only be linked to Ergenekon but could actually be its very base. According to the prosecutor, the church has been “the headquarters and the financial hub” of the covert gang.”

Today’s Zaman, Turkey’s leading conservative English language newspaper reported on January 29, that “Leaders of the Ergenekon gang had jointly decided to “OK”, the murders of three Christians in Malatya.”

The group are also allegedly linked to the slaying of Hrant Dink, an Armenian Turk, who was gunned down outside his office in February 2008 by a nationalist youth.

Ergenekon is suspected of shady links to groups hidden within the state. These groups are commonly referred to as Turkey's "deep state," a phenomenon in which individuals and groups occupying various state positions take justice into their own hands to shape Turkey in accordance with their political convictions.

Today’s Zaman also states: The Ergenekon organisation was working to create a chaotic atmosphere so that its counterparts in the military could overthrow the government, charges brought against the group by a law court in Istanbul has confirmed.”

If it is proven that Ergenekon, is linked to these killings, then the report on Turkey’s unsafe Christians by Aljazeera English takes on a different light.

On March 6, Bianet, an independent Turkish news portal, cited links to the “Susurluk incident”, a scandal that proved for many Turks the existence of the deep state in Turkey: “The roots of the gang are said to go back to the Susurluk case of 1996. A car accident in that city which shook Turkey because it revealed connections between the state, the mafia, and nationalist hit men.”

Cengiz Candar a columnist for the Turkish Daily News, states the importance of rooting out such organisations in Turkey. “Leaving things half-done will also prove how impossible it is to firmly attach Turkey within any particular structure of the “modern world” or of the European Union. The Ergenekon investigation is indeed one of the “most important incidents” of recent Turkish history toward securing the country's future.”

Fetiye Cetin, Dink’s family lawyer agrees and explains that proving the involvement of nationalist elements of Turkish security services in Dink’s murder will be a similar test: “If the government really wants democracy and rule of law, it has to solve this murder case. Because Turkey's enlightenment partly depends on the clarification of this case. It all comes down to some security forces. They should investigate and see if there was negligence or purposeful act.”

Turkish police were repeatedly warned of death threats to Dink, but failed to protect him.

The report therefore failed to look at why Turkey’s Christians are taunted and how Turkey’s youth, especially outside the commercial hubs such as Istanbul and Ankara are also victimised by such groups because the dire situation they find themselves in. Turkey suffers from high unemployment, 10 % nationwide but it doubles in areas like the Black Sea where at least 50 % of the population are below the age of 30 with little or no job prospects. They are swept into an unregistered economy, which creates a sense of failure and despair. The national education system itself is staunchly nationalist in nature and contributes to these feelings.

The sad fact that this reporting is still practised in Turkey means that it is a nation that is still deeply misunderstood

The headscarf, the headscarf, the headscarf. This is just a fraction of the times I've heard this small item of clothing mentioned this week. Turkey is spinning from the headscarf frenzy, which has given me a chance to meet some women that perhaps I wouldn't have had the chance to otherwise.

I live in a relatively trendy neighbourhood and live a very Western life-style as do many of my Turkish friends. I'm not saying they are all big drinkers many of them are not, but for ease of understanding they live very secular lifestyles. But hang on a minute, what does a "secular life-style" mean? And here we are again, right back to redefining the definitions in Turkey.

A practising Muslim woman gave me her take on Turkey's secularism this week:

"The government should be impartial. It shouldn't violate the rights of its citizens who wear the headscarf by always taking the side of those who don't wear it. If it describes itself as secular, and if we define secularism as the separation of state from religious affairs -this is the typical description in Turkey- yes these two are separated. But the government always had the authority to organize and direct religious affairs. In Turkey, religious life, religious beliefs have always been oppressed."

Pretty articulate don't you think? She is one of the millions of women who lost the chance to further their studies after the headscarf ban in universities was implemented over a decade ago. It's a sad story. She moved away from her hometown to find a better life and get herself a higher education, only to find it was all shattered after the ban came in.

The woman I met is an example of why women need to have an education, because it gives them more choices and as some experts have been saying in the Turkish media this week, could prevent extremism in the future. The only problem now is that women are still discriminated against once they leave university as the headscarf is also banned in public office.

Regardless of the hype and the inevitable lifting of the ban, another interesting development is going on in Turkey. The constitutional package that has been agreed on by the ruling AK Party and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) is slated to include a clause on the type of headscarf that will be permitted.

This for me is an extremely curious development. It could be Turkey defining its own Islamic dress code aimed at keeping a more extremist type of Islamic expression at bay. Or a promotion and institutionalising of it, depending on which way you're looking from.

The clause is said to allow "the traditional scarf tied under the chin in universities but not the veil, chador or burqa".

The headscarf has been worn in Anatolia for thousands of years, and will be for many more I expect. This could therefore be seen as a revival perhaps of the "Turkish headscarf".

I tried to also interview a more secular Turkish woman this week so that I could profile these two women back to back. But I couldn't find a more secular woman who wanted to go on the record about their fears. Why not? Even the more religious conservative Turk has fears of extremism. They don't necessarily want to live with Sharia. They have lived with the imposition of not being able to attend university for over a decade now, and say that they don't want to impose anything on anyone.

The problem here is that both sides aren't talking to each other. The woman that I interviewed, who is now the mother of 4 because she was deprived of her education is hoping that her kids will get the opportunities she once took for granted.

I hope that Turkey is able to make this transition smoothly, I think it will, most people you talk to are not against the lifting of the ban but they are against extremist politics. So an education may be the best preventative measure to fight against such issues anyway.

And as my subject told me this week, it is a personal choice to practise Islam and how to practise it.

"We wear the headscarf and the reason is our belief in Allah. Since we believe Allah ordered us to cover our heads, we wear it. I don't see myself in a position to order anyone to cover their heads if they are not believers. If they do, it wouldn't mean much. If they believe, they would voluntarily cover their heads. If she thinks the headscarf is unnecessary, she wouldn't wear it. But it is unacceptable to forbid people to go to school or to work with their headscarf on with a presumption that one day those who wear the headscarf will force others to do so. They act with pure prejudice. And honestly, they impose their prejudices on the other side as a cruel act. I don't think it is right when a person who doesn't wear the headscarf says 'I am not wearing it,
so you shouldn't wear it either'. I mean, people say they are Muslim. But if they don't fulfill the requirements of their belief, the
responsibility belongs to them. "

This statement is an open desire for equality but at the same time denies it, which is the precise issue more liberal Turks have with the more religious conservatives.

Do I have to cover my hair to believe in God? Not at all. And as an Iranian friend recently told me the enforcement of the Islamic dress code in Iran has lead to a less sincere faith in some young Iranians. Covering the hair in Turkey dates back beyond Islam, but was a cultural identity that has been accepted for thousands of years.

Live and let live, but don't be complacent.

Nationalism V Patriotism

By Jody Sabral


Does being a nationalist make you a fascist? For those who do not know Turkey, it might. Recently I was challenged by a Turkish colleague that in Turkey being a “nationalist” does not mean the desire for a pure “Turkic” race.

He explained: “If you say ‘Turkish-nationalist’ then it’s different, this could be used to describe a kind of fascism. But the prefix “Turkish” is important here. This kind of nationalism is one that is built on an idea of ethnicity perhaps. I can say I’m nationalist ‘milliyetciyim’ but I say it because I love my country, not because I hate people who have a different ethnic root than I. My country is a mosaic, which is why I love it.”

By definition in English, nationalism can mean: The desire for and the attempt to achieve political independence for his/her country, according to the Cambridge dictionary. It can also describe someone who loves their country “too” much.

This “too” much, is always a worry when we talk about nationalism in English, but my friend went on to explain.

“Why can’t we say we love our country. It’s a regular healthy expression. It doesn’t mean that I hate all other races that are different than me.” he said.

It was then that I realised there must be a different word to describe him in Turkish, although he still insists that nationalist is ok.

The word I was looking for was “vatan sever”, which means patriot. By definition, according to the Cambridge dictionary, it means someone who loves their country and is prepared to die for it.

So what is the difference then between patriot and nationalist? Not much according to the dictionary, but it is a widely held common idea that a patriotic person is not as threatening as a nationalist to a multi-ethnic society.

So, is this why the West have hyped the “rising nationalism” in Turkey? Is there really a rise in nationalism, or has it always been like this? And have we just got it wrong by definition?

In recent polls less than 10% of Turks said that they supported US policies. This is then translated into a “new nationalism” in Turkey.

It may be more accurate but less provocative to say that there has been a “rise in patriotism as Turks look to their own government to solve their problems from within.”

And after the Iraqi invasion, which happened right next door – who would blame them?

It’s all too easy to categorize people according to our own perceptions and politics, especially when it suits our own cause.

I hate definitions in all their forms although I am forced to apply them because I work in the media. Television does not allow you time to explain, so labels and adjectives are used to simplify the message. But then it becomes distorted, squeezed between media organizations

Facts speak for themselves, don't they?

Turkey is a multi-layered society, in which labels get distorted. These labels divide and conquer, they do not harmonise or even get close to the root of the problem.

Many Turks choose a lifestyle when they choose an ideology - it is not always a political statement. It can be the difference between getting a regular salary, or not, or working in a building that has a bar in its basement or not - very simple things.

Turks are tolerant, which is sometimes a curse, but at the same time it can be a blessing. Turkey is a nation that was built from a crumbling empire. It was saved from the invaders. Its identity is built on this notion, but we now see that it is moving to a new era, one that is not based on fear.

It was built on its own defense, when are we going to stop giving "it" such a hard time, and allow it time to breathe and catch up to where it needs to be. It has the ability, it has the academics, yes, and now it seems that there is some revitalized political will. It has a wealth of cultures, it is still for me a mini-empire where multitudes of cultures intermingle as one.

I have fascinating conversations with friends about their origins, which are hardly ever Turk by ethnicity. What is Turk anyway?

No wonder Turkey is still defending itself.

This week, a colleague in France, who was to host a programme on Abdullah Gul’s candidacy asked me: “But why is everyone so sure that he will secure the presidency? Especially now that there is a nationalist party in parliament?”

My answer: “Being Muslim is part of the Turkish identity, not all nationalism is Turkey is built on what we know it to be in the West. The MHP is a nationalist party yes, but it also has religious roots too.”

“Oh, that is strange,” she said.

“Yes, but that’s Turkey,” I said, “which is why it’s so fascinating.”


AND HERE'S THE TURKISH
http://www.boyuthaber.com/haber/20070823/Milliyetcilik-ve-Vatanseverlik.php

Milliyetçilik ve Vatanseverlik
“Evet, burası Türkiye, işte budan dolayı burası büyüleyici”
23 / 08 / 2007 02:28
jodysabral@boyuthaber.com

Milliyetçi olmak bir insanı faşist yapar mı? Türkiye’yi tanımayanları evet yapar. Geçenlerde bir Türk meslektaşım bana Türkiye’de “milliyetçi” olmak için illa da saf “Türk” ırkından gelmek gerekmediğini söyledi.

Bana aynen şöyle bir açıklamada bulundu “Eğer “Türk-Milliyetçisi” dersen bu farklıdır, bu ifade bir tür ırkçılık olarak tanımlanabilir. Ancak burada “Türk” öneki önemlidir. Bu tür bir milliyetçilik muhtemelen bir etnisite fikri üzerine inşa edilmiş olabilir. Ben “milliyetçi” olduğumu söyleyebilirim, ancak bunu sadece vatanımı sevdiğim için ifade ederim yoksa benden farklı etnik kökenden gelen insanlardan nefret ettiğim için değil. Ülkem bir mozaik gibidir ve bunun için onu seviyorum”.

İngilizce tanımıyla “milliyetçilik”; Cambridge sözlüğüne göre şu anlama gelir: “bir kişinin ülkesinin siyasi bağımsızlığını gerçekleştirmek için beslediği arzu ve girişimdir.” Bu tanımın devamı olarak da “milliyetçi” bir kişi ülkesini “çok fazla” seven kişi olarak tanımlanabilir.

Bu “çok fazla” ibaresi, İngilizcede milliyetçilikten bahsederken duyduğumuz bir kaygıdır her zaman. Ancak arkadaşım açıklamasına şöyle devam etti:

“Niçin ülkemizi çok fazla sevdiğimizi söyleyemeyelim ki? Bu, gayet düzenli ve sağlıklı bir ifade. Bunu söylemem benim benden olmayan diğer tüm ırklardan nefret ettiğim anlamına gelmez”.

İşte o zaman onu Türkçede başka bir kelime ile tanımlamak gerektiğini fark ettim gerçi o “milliyetçi”nin uygun olduğunu düşünse de.

Benim aradığım kelime İngilizcede “patriot” olarak ifade edilen “vatansever”di. Yine Cambridge sözlüğüne göre vatansever: “ülkesini seven ve onun için ölmeye hazır olan kimse”dir.

O zaman vatansever ve milliyetçi arasındaki fark nedir? Sözlüğe göre pek fark yok, ancak geniş kesimlerce benimsenen ortak fikre göre vatansever bir insan çok ırklı bir toplumda milliyetçi birisi kadar tehdit unsuru olarak algılanmaz.

İşte bundan dolayıdır ki, Batılılar Türkiye’de “yükselen milliyetçiliğe” aşırı dikkat çekmeye uğraşırlar. Milliyetçilikte gerçekten bir yükseliş var mı, yoksa her zaman böyle miydi? Yoksa biz aslında sadece tanımdan dolayı mı bu yanılsamaya düşüyoruz?

Son yapılan kamuoyu araştırmalarına göre Türklerin % 10’dan daha azı ABD politikalarını destekliyor. Yani % 90’dan fazla bir ABD karşıtlığı var. Böyle olunca bu durum Türkiye’de “yeni milliyetçilik” olarak değerlendiriliyor.

“Türkler kendi hükümetlerinin kendi meselelerini çözmesini istedikçe vatanseverliklerinde bir yükseliş var” demek daha dikkatli ve daha az provokatif bir ifade olabilir.

Özellikle de hemen yanı başlarında cereyan eden Irak işgalinden sonra, onları kim suçlayabilir?

İnsanları kendi algılamalarımıza ve politikalarımıza göre kategorize etmek, özellikle de işimize de geliyorsa çok kolay ve basittir.

Ben, medyada çalıştığım için sıkça kullanmam gerekse de, tüm tanımlamaların her çeşidinden nefret ediyorum. Televizyon açıklama yapma imkânı vermiyor size, böyle olunca da etiketler ve sıfatlar mesajı basitleştirmek için kullanılıyor. Ama bu durumda da her şey medya kuruluşlarının arasında eğip bükülüyor ve tahrif ediliyor.

Hakikatler yalnız kendileri için konuşurlar, öyle değil mi?

Türk toplumu, etiketlerin tahrif edildiği çok katmanlı bir toplum. Etiketlemeler bölüyor ve fethediyor, uyum sağlamıyorlar ve sorunun köküne bile yaklaşamıyorlar.

Türklerin çoğu illa siyasi olmasa da, ideoloji seçerken hayat tarzlarını da seçiyorlar. Burada, düzenli bir maaşı olup olmamak, oturduğu binanın altında bar bulunup bulunmamak gibi çok basit şeylerden dolayı farklılıklar oluşmakta.

Türkler hoşgörülüdürler, bu bazen bir lanet gibi görünse de aynı zaman da rahmet olarak da algılanabilir. Türkler batmış bir imparatorluğun küllerinden inşa edilmiş bir millettir. İşgalci ve istilacılardan kurtarılmış bir millet. Kimliklerinin aslında bu nosyon ve kavram üzerine inşa olduğunu, ancak bununla birlikte korkuya dayanmayan yeni bir çağa ve aşamaya doğru ilerlenmekte olduğunu görüyoruz.

Çok zor, artık “vermekten ve kaybetmekten” ne zaman kurtulacağız denilen bir dönemde nefes alacak ve olması gereken yere gelecek biçimde kendi savunması üzerine inşa edilmiş bir toplumdur Türk toplumu. Yeteneği vardır, bilim adamları vardır ve yeniden canlanmış bir siyasi iradesi vardır. Kültürel serveti vardır, bana göre Türkiye hala benzersiz bir biçimde kültürel birikimlerin harman olduğu bir mini imparatorluktur.

Etnik olarak çoğu saf Türk dahi olmayan Türk arkadaşlarımla çok sürükleyici konuşmalarım oluyor. Bu arada anlam olarak Türk ne demekti?

Türkiye’nin hala kendini savunuyor olması şaşılacak bir şey değil.

Bu hafta Abdullah GÜL’ün adaylığı ile ilgili bir program sunacak olan Fransa’dan bir meslektaşım bana şunu sordu: “Ama neden herkes GÜL’ün cumhurbaşkanlığına kesin gözüyle bakıyor? Özellikle de şimdi mecliste bir milliyetçi parti varken?”

Benim cevabım aynen şöyle oldu: “Müslüman olmak Türk kimliğinin bir parçasıdır, Türkiye’deki milliyetçiliğin tamamı bizim Batıda algıladığımız anlam ve değerler üzerine kurulu değildir. Evet MHP, milliyetçi bir partidir ama dini kökleri de vardır”.

“Ya öyle mi, bu çok ilginç” dedi.


Ben de: “Evet, burası Türkiye, işte budan dolayı burası büyüleyici” dedim.



Fotoğraf İkizdere Ovit Şenliklerinde Jody SABRAL tarafından çekilmiştir.

-----

Jody SABRAL'ın yazısı Yavuz Selim KURT tarafından tercüme edilmiştir.

Divide and conquer; Gul's candidacy

Choices... choices... choices...


With the news that there will be no alternative to Abdullah Gul’s presidency from AKP, we can expect more tensions ahead. One of the most hotly debated topics in Turkish homes is the issue of whether Gul can be Turkey’s next president.

Mathematically he can, he needs 367 deputies present in the first two rounds, something that seems easy now with the support of the MHP announcing that they would attend the session, although possibly not vote. But it is surely bound to cause more tensions. As Yusuf Kanli put it in his column in the TDN yesterday: “It’s not the headscarf Turks have an issue with, it’s what it symbolises – political Islam.”

Why then is AKP pushing ahead with Gul for president. They say that they can not head the calls of the public on the issue of Gul’s presidential bid citing the election results as a reason to push on. But would AKP really have won 50% of the vote had the polls been held in November as planned, a summer of no action in northern Iraq, may well have garnered more votes to the MHP, many people voted for them on issues of national security.

And just two months before the elections, and before the famous military memo of April 27th, AKP was running at about 35% of the vote. So, what makes them think that a reaction by the public against military intervention means that there is overwhelming support for Gul for president. No one can say give a reason why military intervention is good for Turkey, but many can say why Gul's candidacy is causing problems.

Gul’s candidacy threw Turkey into a period of turmoil, which resulted with a more moderate AKP in fact [200 new MPs were brought into the party, some cite military intervention her in fact]. But what makes AKP think that it won’t cause the same tensions again. Of course, technically Gul can win, but what about the other 50% of the country who didn’t vote for AKP.

AKP should be cautious over this issue, and also act politically mature in relation to the presidency. There is an opposition to Gul, and it’s a strong one, the military.

Is it politically realistic for the military to accept Abdullah Gul’s wife as the first lady. I will refer back to Yusuf Kanli’s statement again. “The headscarf is not the issue, it’s what it symbolises, political Islam.”

He has a point, Turkey is a secular, democratic country, where religion is a personal choice, and the type of headscarf that Mrs Gul wears does symbolise something political in Turkey, this fact can not be avoided.

Mrs Gul has the right to chose, this is true, it is her personal choice. But to become the first lady, as with any job, also comes much responsibility. So, when then does personal choice come before your responsibilities to public service, it is also a choice to accept the responsibilities that come with this position, which in Turkey means representing an image that doesn’t project any type of religious statement – as it is a private thing.

The reality that the president is the top commander of the military – overseeing the security council – should surely be recognised by AKP, as a source for tension over this issue.

Why then do they push on with these actions. To create more change in the political system, to further democratise Turkey?

Some members of the Kurdish camp are supporting Gul’s candidacy. Why? Because they are simply against the military and CHP or anything related to Ataturk and Turkish nationalism, not necessarily because they really want Gul as president. Is this the right reason to give support? AKP should understand this, and note that it could divide Turkey further. Some, of course are supporting the bid because of religion, which therefore makes the issue of support on religious grounds politicized. Isn't that what Turkey is trying to stay away from, political Islam.

Of course, with any type of change in a political system – moving away from a military constitution to a civilian one – there must be tensions. But have we had enough already this year in the past few months? We now have a system that looks more like a western democracy with a one-party government returning to power, which can bring more stability and reforms.

But, there must at some point be a consensus reached between all parties, in order to set an example to the ordinary voter on the street that consensus can be reached in Turkey.

There are so many different groups in Turkey, as I wrote in my previous article, perhaps 6, 7, 8 or more Turkey’s, and these Turkeys need its leaders to set an example of peace and harmony and consensus between all sides.

For now, the question in my mind is still open on Gul, he has yet to confirm his candidacy. If AKP does push on with Gul, I would hope that it would then go to a referendum rather than divide parliament, and the voters further.

But time will tell, only time will tell.

Polarisation; myth or fact?

I have lived in Turkey for almost six years now, and it still teaches me something new every day. Istanbul, Turkey’s largest commercial hub, is a labyrinth that embodies a romantic old Europe with mounds of eastern history to unravel. Once you start peeling back the layers, it becomes an obsession that most of us foreigners can’t live without.

People always ask: “Why Turkey?” My reply: “Why not?”.

If truth be told the first time I came to Turkey I hated it. I landed in a conservative neighbourhood of Istanbul, and, was in complete culture shock for at least ten days. There were no women on the street after 9pm. My apartment was about 20 metres from a very noisy mosque. No one spoke English. I didn’t understand the public transport. I felt as if I’d landed on the moon. I remember calling my mother, after I’d figured out the awful public payphone system, and pleading with her to rescue me from this backwater place.

I returned six months later and haven’t been able to leave since. It’s not like I haven’t tried. I have left Turkey at least five times, but I always return. So, why is Istanbul so attractive to us foreigners? It’s the village syndrome. Istanbul is a city of almost 17 million people. It has everything anyone could want, culture, the arts, nightlife, hidden away pockets of nature, the hustle bustle of any worldly metropolis. It is a city that is constantly moving, but, it is one of the only cities in the world in my opinion – I’ve travelled from the US to South East Asia – where one feels like you’ve known your taxi driver forever. I live in a city, but it feels like a village, and my taxi-driver lives on the next street.

Turkish taxi-driving hospitality

Recently I had to attend a live programme on Turkey’s ongoing elections cycle. Already ten minutes late I ran out of the house and hailed a taxi on the street. When we got to the studio I reached into my bag for my wallet, but found myself in a very awkward position, I'd left it at home. Oh no, I thought "What should I do?"

Seeing my dispair, my taxici simply shrugged his shoulders and said casually: “No problem, you can pay me later, it’s OK.” My taxici was a stranger to me, but he wanted to help solve my problems.

Although we live in a vast city, there is always someone who wants to help, be it because they are nosey, or bored or for whatever reason. But Turkish people still have time for each other. This is something to be applauded. There is this feeling that “we are in this together”. It’s something quite remarkable to me, still, after all this time, because I come from a world where people make appointments two weeks ahead just to have dinner with a personal friend.

So if people still extend a helping hand to each other, is Turkish society really becoming more polarized as many analysts say? The recent crisis over the presidential elections have been cited as proof of this polarisation – millions of people took to the streets to protest against an “Islamic lifestyle”. The western media played a great role in fostering tensions by talking about “two Turkeys”. But, since when has there only been two Turkeys? At my last count there were at least 6, 7 , 8 or even more Turkeys. It is a complex social fabric of many religions, ethnicities, and cultures that even an expert anthropologist would have a hard time counting.

Tough measure

I personally attended both the Ankara and Istanbul protests, and there is no doubt that they were absolutely huge. There were masses of people on the street, but were the numbers honest? News services claimed that turn out in Istanbul had been larger than that of Ankara. In my opinion, and the opinion of the two handsome policemen who were standing next to our SNG truck, there were actually less people on the streets of Istanbul than Ankara.

I remember it very clearly, because I and a couple of colleagues were discussing this throughout the day. The general consensus among us was that people had stayed away from the Istanbul protests because of the military memorandum issued just one week earlier. When you look at the election results this week, our conclusions on that day made perfect sense. So, were the numbers inflated and why? Was this to add to the ongoing polarisation of Turkish society. Turkish friends tell me: “We don’t talk to each other anymore, there is even an eye of suspicion towards a stranger.”

But, from where I’m standing conversation has never been so lively in Turkey. Even the taxi driver has something to say on the country’s future. The question everyone is asking now is: “Will the new government be able to please the ordinary taxi driver that still wants to help you.”

This will be the new government's toughest challenge, to transfer the recent economic boom of the financial markets into something that helps the ordinary Turk. Unemployment and underemployment are issues that will need tough measures. But, finding help when you need it in this city needs absolutely no measure at all.