I know this question is straightforward, but it is one that we have to ask and answer if we are really interested in identifying and removing the obstacles before the democratization process. Any ideology may claim to be “good” and “right,” but if an ideology claims to have a monopoly over the “truth” and secures a constitutional superiority over other sets of ideas and ideologies, it turns out to be incompatible with democracy. Democracy requires pluralism of views that compete with one another. If the founding principles of a state are reduced to a single ideology, neither democracy nor rule of law can flourish, simply because constitutional order would not protect the pluralities of ideas and ideologies, but the one on which it is based.
The notion of state ideology is incompatible with the notion of democracy. Democracy does not only welcome plurality of views, programs, and ideologies, but requires them. These contending “views” on society should be in free competition to attract the support of the people.
As a set of ideas, Kemalism certainly deserves a place among the others and is entitled to protection from the state and law, just like other views, ideas, and ideologies. But it cannot ask for a monopoly or even a privilege. It is time for the Kemalists to understand for the sake of Turkish democracy that Kemalism is one among others that compete for adherence and acceptance by the people. The state protection and privileges for Kemalism only lead to distancing it further from society, people losing faith in democracy and producing more radicalism. In the free market of ideas, the Kemalists, too, will moderate themselves in order to appeal to a greater number of people.
We certainly need “moderate Kemalism” that accepts pluralism and democracy. But this requires abandoning the claim to be the sole provider of truth for society and the state, which is a totalitarian inclination anyway. Construction of a new and homogenized society by using the coercive means of the state is unacceptable from a liberal democratic point of view. In order not to be described as the new reactionaries of Turkey in the 21st century, the Kemalists had better come to terms with democracy and pluralism. It is the engagement in the path of democracy and the free market of ideas that may make the Kemalists feel the need for moderation.
When we look at the neo-Kemalists today, they seem to have a deep fear of the values and institutions of political modernity, namely democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The modern state cannot impose a particular ideology on its citizens. This is against the very nature of the state and its raison d’etre, which is to protect individual rights against the Leviathan, not vice versa.
However, some Kemalists still imagine Turkey as an ideological state, unaware of the fact that Turkish social, economic and political realities do not allow the imposition of a state ideology.
But some think that it is possible and they try. By doing so they opt out of the rules, norms, and principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. To make people uniformly believe in a state ideology, the neo-Kemalists seem prepared to resort to authoritarian means. That is how neo-Kemalism has become an authoritarian political and social project. Their problem is viewing citizens as subservient to the state and its ideology, instead of recognizing them as autonomous moral and political entities capable of making individual and public choices.
The Kemalists also seem far from curing their strong anti-Western sentiments and position, which leads them to misinterpret the events in Turkey and abroad. Once the Islamists in Turkey thought of the West in this way, but now it is the Kemalists who think the West is the mother of all evil.
Kemalism as a state ideology above the law and principles of democracy goes against the notion of “contemporary civilization.”
Not only Kemalism but all ideologies that intend to use the state apparatus to silence and suppress other ideologies are incompatible with the principles of democracy.
04.10.2007
The notion of state ideology is incompatible with the notion of democracy. Democracy does not only welcome plurality of views, programs, and ideologies, but requires them. These contending “views” on society should be in free competition to attract the support of the people.
As a set of ideas, Kemalism certainly deserves a place among the others and is entitled to protection from the state and law, just like other views, ideas, and ideologies. But it cannot ask for a monopoly or even a privilege. It is time for the Kemalists to understand for the sake of Turkish democracy that Kemalism is one among others that compete for adherence and acceptance by the people. The state protection and privileges for Kemalism only lead to distancing it further from society, people losing faith in democracy and producing more radicalism. In the free market of ideas, the Kemalists, too, will moderate themselves in order to appeal to a greater number of people.
We certainly need “moderate Kemalism” that accepts pluralism and democracy. But this requires abandoning the claim to be the sole provider of truth for society and the state, which is a totalitarian inclination anyway. Construction of a new and homogenized society by using the coercive means of the state is unacceptable from a liberal democratic point of view. In order not to be described as the new reactionaries of Turkey in the 21st century, the Kemalists had better come to terms with democracy and pluralism. It is the engagement in the path of democracy and the free market of ideas that may make the Kemalists feel the need for moderation.
When we look at the neo-Kemalists today, they seem to have a deep fear of the values and institutions of political modernity, namely democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The modern state cannot impose a particular ideology on its citizens. This is against the very nature of the state and its raison d’etre, which is to protect individual rights against the Leviathan, not vice versa.
However, some Kemalists still imagine Turkey as an ideological state, unaware of the fact that Turkish social, economic and political realities do not allow the imposition of a state ideology.
But some think that it is possible and they try. By doing so they opt out of the rules, norms, and principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. To make people uniformly believe in a state ideology, the neo-Kemalists seem prepared to resort to authoritarian means. That is how neo-Kemalism has become an authoritarian political and social project. Their problem is viewing citizens as subservient to the state and its ideology, instead of recognizing them as autonomous moral and political entities capable of making individual and public choices.
The Kemalists also seem far from curing their strong anti-Western sentiments and position, which leads them to misinterpret the events in Turkey and abroad. Once the Islamists in Turkey thought of the West in this way, but now it is the Kemalists who think the West is the mother of all evil.
Kemalism as a state ideology above the law and principles of democracy goes against the notion of “contemporary civilization.”
Not only Kemalism but all ideologies that intend to use the state apparatus to silence and suppress other ideologies are incompatible with the principles of democracy.
04.10.2007
No comments:
Post a Comment