Murat Belge*
For someone like me, engaging in politics in service of a religious ideology is unacceptable. This has always been somewhat true for Turkey, but since the early 2000s, a party that has adopted this stance is in power, unhesitatingly engaging in any behavior one might expect from such governance.
It’s clear that a party declaring itself “Islamist” would be a doctrinal party. However, “doctrine” encompasses more than a single interpretation or intent; it can be understood in many ways. Indeed, the party declaring itself “Islamist” in Turkey today is not just the AKP. The electoral success of these parties cannot determine who is “more Islamist.” Their connection to Islam varies according to how the leading individuals of the movement interpret Islam.
Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan’s interpretation and assessment are among these. If Abdullah Gül were leading the AKP today, its politics would be different. Even comparing Tayyip ErdoÄŸan of 2010 with today shows two distinct paths. We cannot say “Today’s ErdoÄŸan is more Islamist.” Likely, he doesn’t think so either.
Moving on, I want to discuss the effects of “Islamic politics,” as implemented by the current government, on the relationship between politics and morality in society and the overall moral level.
It’s impossible to claim that the AKP’s political behaviors are “moral.” Which should we examine? The strategies of winning elections with photo montages? The “favoritism” incidents causing harm? Their trampling of every moral principle to pursue what they consider in the party’s interest? Their stubborn insistence on falsehoods?
Their larger, more impactful behaviors are overt: they plainly state, “If you don’t vote for us, the municipality you choose will suffer.” They do not hesitate to imprison those known to oppose them, using any unjust and unlawful means. They contradict themselves from one day to the next, embracing those they previously labeled as “murderers.”
I’m not even discussing “policies” like withdrawing from the Istanbul Convention or the irrational extents of “Atatürk hostility” they’ve incorporated into their identity; my issue is not with correct or incorrect political choices. I’m talking about the existential stance concentrated on “Whatever I do is right.” “I am right because I am a believing Muslim; I must remain in power because the correct rule is Islamic; therefore, any means to sustain power is permissible.” This is the logic being applied, not only within politicized cadres but also spreading to other sections of society that see little wrong with this reasoning, slowly but steadily taking root. This trend is alarming, with the potential to outlast the AKP’s tenure.
This doctrine didn’t necessitate adopting the behaviors I briefly mentioned. It wasn’t necessary to elevate partisanship to a virtue.
It wasn’t mandatory to push people towards such one-sided seeing, thinking, and acting.
To fully align with Tayyip ErdoÄŸan’s policies, we must learn to hate and take it as our guide. Whether ErdoÄŸan has managed to mold the part of society that stands with him or is close to his position to his desired consistency, I do not know. He has made significant progress, but I doubt he has fully achieved his goal. I have no doubt he will do everything in his power to reach it. Fortunately, societies are not so “plastic”; you can’t mold them into any shape you wish. The majority of society remains distant from adopting such a “bloodthirsty” stance.
We don’t know what lies ahead. The more we try to guess, the more dreadful possibilities come to mind. The worst is the recklessness that seems to have thoroughly taken hold today. This opens the door to rash developments, and it seems the government has no intention of abandoning its “after you” attitude, as long as it’s their men walking through that door.
*Murat Belge (born 16 March 1943) is a Turkish academic, translator, literary critic, columnist, civil rights activist, and occasional tour guide.
This article was first published in Birikim Magazine and translated into English by Politurco.
