14 02 2007 - Leader Deniz Baykal, speaking about the controversial Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. ‘Nationalism race’

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=10245 -- From A. Melikian
‘Nationalism race’
by MÜMTAZ’ER TÜRKÖNE
“They shall digest Turkishness!” says Republican People’s Party (CHP) Leader Deniz Baykal, speaking about the controversial Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.

The said article defines the crime of “insulting Turkishness,” whose commission entails an imprisonment of up to three years. With the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, the long-debated article became the focal point of political discussions. Political identities and attitudes were divided along the support/opposition line to the article. Most importantly, some discussions referred to the provocative climate created by the article as the primary reason for Dink’s murder. He was prosecuted under the article on the grounds that he insulted Turkishness.
The crime of “insulting Turkishness” as outlined in Article 301 may have different meanings because of speculation as to what “Turkishness” connotes. The majority of Turkish citizens are of ethnic Turkish origin. The Constitution transforms this ethnic identity to an expression of citizenship bonds. By providing that “Everyone bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship is a Turk,” Article 66 of Turkish Constitution transforms the term “Turk” from an ethnic reference to a legal description. For this reason, skeptics argue that the “Turkishness” invoked in Article 301 reconstructs the ethnic references and thus contradicts with the Constitution.
Last November, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan called on civil society organizations to work on possible amendments to Article 301. While initial attempts failed, after Dink’s murder, the amendment process was revitalized. Last week, another meeting attended by civil society organizations was held to address the issue, but once again, the attempt was unsuccessful. Just recently, the organizations announced they reached an agreement on an amended text. The statement provides that because of the vagueness of the present text, different meanings could be inferred; hence “Turkishness” should be replaced by “Turkish nation.” The newly invented formula will apparently not work out. Because the notion “Turkishness” is preserved intact, the accompanying term “Turkish nation” will unlikely eliminate the different interpretations and change the definition of the existing crime. Those who put forward this proposal, while using the notion “Turkishness” in the ethnical sense, think they use “Turkish nation” as the match of modern “nation.” But the problem is not in the description of the “Turkishness” notion but in the description of “Turkish nation” so as to embrace all Turkish citizens. As such, those who interpret this article may demand the interpretation of the “Turkish nation” in parallel with the ethnic content of “Turkishness.”
Because they did not agree with the proposal, the leftist Turkish Physicians Association and labor union DÝSK left the meeting. In its present form, the amendment proposal lags even behind the already controversial existing article text.
The entire discussion process shows that supporting the full preservation of the article in its present form is cited as the benign manifestation of an extreme nationalist and even chauvinist stance. Baykal’s remark, “They shall digest Turkishness,” represents this extreme nationalist view. CHP asserts Article 301 should be kept as it is. The only leftist party of Turkish political landscape aligns itself with the extreme nationalist circles. Let us recall CHP is a member of Socialist International.
Citing Matt Bryza from the US State Department, Yasemin Çongar noted that nationalism was viewed by the US administration as the only common concept of Turkish politics. Bryza asserted the rise of nationalism was not at an alarming level. He is not so wrong. Nationalism has already created the discussion ground on which the upcoming elections would be based. The primary actors of the political landscape question the nationalist stance of their opponents. Prime Minister and AK Party leader Recep Tayyip Erdoðan, while openly accusing the MHP, the party that managed to transform the nationalist ideology into a political movement, of racism, asserts that his party adopts a positive nationalist approach. In order not to lag behind in the race, the only leftist party CHP, as already noted, adopts an ethno-centric nationalist paradigm as a political discourse.
Apparently, the secularism-reactionary movement debate that has long dominated the realm of political discussions is being replaced by the conflicting views on nationalism. The message President Ahmet Necdet Sezer gave last week on the occasion of 70th anniversary of the inclusion of secularism principle in the constitution harbored some elements that certainly need further discussion. Quite unusually, the president barred the judiciary from making comments on secularism. The lack of attention to this message, which did not trigger new debates, demonstrates how busy the political environment is with the nationalism discussions.
How does the domination of competition by all political actors along nationalist lines affect Turkey’s future?
The answer to this question should be sought in the sociological base that feeds nationalism. Society -- particularly the younger generations -- are experiencing a state of common anomie in connection with the crash of the tradition under modernity’s impacts. Unemployment, poverty and the huge income disparities as reflected through the TV screens lead the youth to hatred and anger. They seek a scapegoat to blame for all mistakes. Nationalism serves as a channel to embrace this anger. Every challenge in foreign or domestic policy is transformed into a concrete enemy. The already growing anti-Americanism is further fostered by nationalism. The developments in northern Iraq since the US occupation and the likely division of Iraq in three separate states rise serious concerns. The Kirkuk issue has become the most important foreign policy issue of the Turkish state. The EU is accused of double standards and hypocrisy vis-à-vis Turkey. The Cyprus issue has become the most favorite discussion of nationalist politics.
The nationalist race among political parties will inevitably deepen the already existing nationalist concerns. A race that will take place between the different tones of nationalism will most probably create a much more serious breakdown than secularism debates did in the near past. The race that took place along the secularism debate was easy to control because of its state-oriented character. When the generals became reluctant to express their concerns over secularism, the tension was eased in its natural course. Conversely, nationalism has the potential to politicize the social issues and create distinct sides by partitioning the entire society into opposing poles. It is already evident that nationalism embodies strong feelings. A political discourse seized by sentiments and emotions will only promote hatred and enmity.
To resolve a political equation with multiple unknown variables, we must be able to provide a satisfactory answer to this question: Will the tension that politics creates be reflected in the society in its entirety? Or will the competition that fosters nationalism remain a political fantasy detached from the public?It seems that society’s anticipation of political stability is strong enough to suppress the herein reviewed nationalist race.
10.02.2007

V.V