Are the Islamists ready to govern?

The Arab Spring is not only an opportunity for Islamists but also a test case. How the Ennahda movement of Tunisia and the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt respond to the challenges will determine the future of both the Arab Spring and the Islamists.

Islamist political movements in Tunisia and Egypt are poised to come to power through the electoral process. This is a new challenge for democracy expected to emerge from the Arab Spring. The question is whether Islamists, once in power, will remain committed to and respectful of democratic institutions and processes. As such, it is also a challenge for Islamists as well, who used to be excluded and oppressed by the prevailing authoritarian regimes in the region.

It is a challenge for Islamists to adapt themselves to the new circumstances. Their ability to change is being tested. Political Islamism is designed as an opposition movement. In an authoritarian political environment where all dissenting voices were suppressed, opposition in the name of Islam was the only remaining ground to challenge the oppressive governments. This is what happened in almost all Muslim countries in the Middle East. Opposition in the name of Islam appeared as the only legitimate form of opposition, with discursive superiority over authoritarian ruling regimes, and it also promised strong popular support, given the influence of religion in the formation of Muslim's identities.

Thus from the 1970s onwards, political Islam emerged as a platform for the opposition, a kind of protest movement challenging the established order. It called for a change in the midst of the stagnant political orders of Arab authoritarianism. Following the failures of Arab nationalism and other secular ideologies, the simple slogan of “Islam is the solution” made sense to the Arab masses and attracted them. It was expected to resolve all the problems of the Muslims, from unemployment to healthcare, from education to housing. Islamism was the blueprint. What the secular-nationalist Arab regimes failed to produce was to be provided by the Islamists.

Islamist opposition movements, however, never developed a comprehensive program on how to resolve all the problems the people encountered. It did not really matter because the authoritarian Arab regimes never allowed them to perform in government. And it was unlikely for the Islamists to one day be in a position to make good on their promises. The Islamists in the region remained for a very long period in opposition, a position in which they could freely criticize the regimes without having to offer anything as an alternative. This was really comfortable. They did not have to offer something concrete in terms of programs and projects as a solution to the problems of the people. They remained in the opposition, comfortably criticizing the government in a way that also increased radicalism and the sweeping political stance of the Islamists.

It was not therefore only the oppression the Islamists experienced that radicalized them, but also the absence of governmental responsibility.

With the Arab Spring, the Islamists now face, at least in Tunisia and Egypt, a new situation.

First, they have been freed from governmental oppression. Now they are in a position to express themselves and appeal to the masses with a positive agenda, not just a series of criticisms directed against the ruling regimes, as in the old days. So they have to develop reasonable programs and come up with sensible projects to address the problems of the people. The old days in which mere criticism of the regimes and an assertion that “Islam is the solution” are gone, and this will not be enough to come to and then remain in power.

Thus the Islamists in the region face their first serious challenge before the people. Will they be able to deliver what they promise?

This is the question. In opposition, they were radical, uncompromising and comfortable. When they are in power on their own or share it with others on the political terrain, things will be fundamentally different. Responsibility in government requires meeting demands and delivering services. What also changes under governmental responsibility is the radicalism of the Islamists, who will not be able to hold on to their radical political stance.

This will be so because people who bring the Islamists to power will not be satisfied by mere radical rhetoric; they will also ask for concrete achievements in delivering services.

So, as the Islamists get closer to taking over governments through democratic means, like in Tunisia and Egypt, they moderate their discourse, embrace non-Muslim social groups and appeal to the West.

The success of the Arab Spring will be measured by the extent to which people's power is institutionalized in the form of democracy. This requires the integration of the Islamist movements in the democratic process, which in turn requires that the Islamists transform their political language and strategies to adopt the “rules of the game.”

New constitution: Is it possible?

The people's overwhelming demand for a new constitution has forced political parties to work together in Parliament. For this, a parliamentary commission consisting of four political parties, each with three members, was set up.

The first meeting of the Constitutional Reconciliation Commission, whose mission is to prepare a draft, is expected to take place this week. Because this is a historic opportunity to make a “democratic constitution” with the true participation of the people for the first time in history, expectations are high.

But we have to be realistic. It is not easy to reach a consensus among political actors as diverse as the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and the Republican People's Party (CHP) on one hand, and the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) on the other.

Before tackling the content of the new constitution, the Reconciliation Commission has to agree on the procedure for reaching a decision. A 100 percent agreement among the participating parties may be desirable but it is almost impossible on contentious issues like citizenship, secularism, compulsory religious education, Kemalism, the composition and elections of the high court and so on. A kind of qualified majority may be sought to pass decisions, but in this case, three-fourths of the commission may bypass the AK Party and reach an agreement among themselves, disregarding the AK Party's parliamentary majority, which precludes approval by Parliament, let alone the people's approval in a referendum. This is not a baseless concern, as something similar happened last year in a referendum on a constitutional amendment.

On the other hand, to give the AK Party a kind of veto power in the commission, given its parliamentary majority, will not be acceptable to other political parties, which accepted Parliament speaker Cemil Çiçek's invitation to the commission on the principle that each party is equally represented in the commission. Whether the draft prepared by the Reconciliation Commission will get through the formal Constitutional Commission, where the AK Party has the majority, is another issue to be resolved.

All these have to be resolved before there is a debate on the content of the new constitution. The “good office” of the speaker of Parliament may not be enough to resolve the differences in the procedure and the content of the new constitution in the preparation period.

Besides, it would be naïve to think that political parties will act “responsibly and constructively” in this process. The politicking will continue, this time in the background of the new constitution. The AK Party will try to appear enthusiastic about a new constitution, knowing that giving the nation a new constitution will be its own success in the end. It will discursively push for it because a new constitution is a great opportunity for the ruling party to underline its “reformist credentials,” which slowly fade away after years in power.

For the CHP, the making of a new constitution is a new battleground to fight against losing the constitutional bases of Kemalism as an ideology and the independence of its institutions from the government. The attempt at reinterpreting secularism in the constitution may provoke the CHP supporters.

For the MHP, the making of the new constitution is a perfect occasion to argue that the ruling AK Party is giving in to the demands of the Kurds and, should the CHP play soft on secularism, to show that it has abandoned its secularist sensitivities. The MHP will use this process in any way possible to make gains at the expense of the AK Party and the CHP, which manipulates the Kurdish question and secularism.

As for the BDP, the constitution-making process is an excellent opportunity to voice its demands for “democratic autonomy,” education in Kurdish, referring to Kurds as a constituent ethnic element in the constitution and so on. Let us assume that the BDP has decided not to exploit the situation, but be constructive and offer to work with the AK Party on the new constitution. Even in this scenario, I think the AK Party will refrain from making a new constitution with the support of the BDP, due to concerns about the possible reaction of the Turks and the MHP's exploitation of the situation at the expense of the AK Party.

The AK Party cannot make a new constitution on its own. It needs the support of other parties. The most likely candidate is still the CHP. This is because the CHP has lost is traditional power base in state institutions like the military, judiciary, and universities. Thus it needs, like all groups that feel insecure vis-à-vis the state power, constitutional protection. If the CHP leadership and supporters forget about their fixation on secularism and seek protection from the AK Party-controlled state, then they can push the AK Party for a genuinely liberal, pluralist and democratic constitution.

In short, Turkey certainly needs a pluralist and democratic constitution that is non-ideological and ethnically blind, but the likelihood of it coming through is slim.

A post-Kemalist constitution for Turkey

The Parliament elected in the June elections has gathered to begin its legislative activities.

The new constitution is high on its agenda. Political parties seem to have agreed to set up a special commission in Parliament to work together on the new constitution. It will certainly not be easy for political parties that differ fundamentally from each other to reach a consensus.

I have not paid much attention to the details. The most important thing is to make a new constitution liberating Turkey from the ideological straightjacket of Kemalism. The new Turkey needs a post-Kemalist constitution. I understand the call for a liberal and democratic constitution as a demand for a non-ideological constitutional base of the state.

This does not mean denouncing Kemalism as an “ideology,” but leave it to the people to choose among the set of ideologies available from the free market of ideas. Let the people follow ideologies if they chose, but keep the state neutral as the basis of a wider consensus on the mechanism of living together without threatening each other.

Turkey is too developed and diversified to be ruled by any ideology upheld in the constitution. The age of ideological states has passed, passed with great pains, agonies, and disappointments. What matters now is a state that provides people not with ideas, ideologies or lifestyles, but with services and protection.

Ideological states, be they socialist, fascist or Kemalist, have failed to meet their promises. They have failed to produce freedom, welfare, and security for their citizens.

To build anew or maintain an ideological state is practically impossible in the contemporary complexities of the global economy, social networks, and political interactions. It is a struggle against the current that risks confronting not only global trends but also the demands of the people at home. People want liberty, welfare, and security, which cannot be provided by an ideological state, as proven by the political history of the 20th century.

Any ideological state formations cannot survive in a flourishing open society, deepening market economy and penetrating globalization. So it is futile to resist.

The demand for a new constitution reflects the crisis of Kemalism in itself. First, it is the crisis of Kemalism as the elitist modernization model. With its revolutionary ethos, Kemalism does not allow for the establishment of a full democracy since it does not trust the choice of people. It is not inclined to leave the people to choose their lifestyles, leaders, and beliefs. People need to be guided, enlightened and ruled. This notion of tutelage that appoints vanguard institutions and actors over the people can no longer be sustained. People do not want tutelage from anyone, including the military and anything involving Kemalism. Thus, a new and post-Kemalist constitution is needed to form a polity that secures and enables the people to rule themselves through liberal democracy.

A new constitution has also become urgent due to the crisis of secularism established and practiced by Kemalism. It is now impossible to dictate that secularism is a way of life, and that those who are not secular in their lifestyles are treated unequally. Such a notion of secularism that excludes the conservatives and religious masses cannot be sustained. Thus a post-Kemalist constitution is needed to remove the authoritarian model of secularism and eliminate the artificial tension between the religious and non-religious groups, the latter being favored by the state and the constitution.

And third, we need a post-Kemalist constitution because the current Constitution's notion of a homogenized nation is not true. There is no point in pretending that there is only one ethnicity in Turkey called Turks. We have to accept the plurality of ethnicities among the citizens of Turkey. Not every citizen of this country is a Turk. But Kemalism from its inception imagined homogenous nationhood and those who did not subscribe to this notion were denied, suppressed and forced to be assimilated.

All the above explains why we need a new constitution to remove the major clashes between social reality and the official imagination of the state based on Kemalism.

Therefore, a post-Kemalist constitution will be a prelude to a fully functioning democracy and the rule of law in Turkey as well as to a peaceful relationship between the Kurds and the conservatives on the one hand and the state on the other.