Indentity Crises and Political Instability in Turkey.

• Author: ERGIL, DOGU

"Political changes need to be publicly negotiated, not imposed on society. Only a national consensus based on a new social contract--not force---can take the country beyond its self-generated conflicts, isolation and authoritarianism."

The first military coup of the Republican regime that took place May 1960 marked a series of military interventions that exposed the failure of Turkey's hegemonic political system to satisfy the majority of its citizens. Many Turks felt alienated from the Western-oriented, secular regime that, ironically, ignored Western values of legality and freedom and was unable to deliver the material wealth promised by modernization and economic development. The benefits of democracy, rule of law and secularism became less convincing as the quality and integrity of the regime that had defined and enshrined these national principles declined. Moreover, with historical identities diluted and modern ones not yet crystallized, identity, crises in both traditional and modern sectors were inevitable.

In addition, the political elite has been unable to meet the needs and expectations of the nation whose hopes they have raised. Equality, respect or dignity, freedom, welfare, opportunities to improve social standing through education and an available job market remain on the whole unkept promises. People continue to face oppression, rampant inequality, unveiled corruption, prevailing poverty and ignorance.

The crisis of identity, experienced by Turkey's citizens parallels the crisis of Turkey's hegemonic state. Understanding the roots of Turkey's identity, crisis helps explain the problems confronted by the hegemonic state, and the ensuing political instability. This articles thus first introduces the concept of identity, theory, and then uses this theory to examine Turkey's current and historical political events. The final section of the article builds upon this knowledge and analyzes contemporary problems caused by this identity, conflict.

GENERAL identity, AND POLITICAL THEORY

The Hegemonic Model

No culture or identity, is resistant to change. Identities are primarily formed when groups of individuals in a society develop a dialectical relationship between "us" and "them." This dialectical relationship is an objective historical one and embodies a changing social construct. Multiple identities emerge out of contact between individuals and groups and, as these contacts proliferate and accumulate, cultures and identities change and new historical epochs are marked.

Individuals have several levels of identity,. For example, a resident of Istanbul might be a descendant of the Byzantine Empire, an ethnic Greek or Armenian whose family lived through centuries of Ottoman rule and is now a citizen of the Republic of Turkey. He or she may be Christian or Muslim or Western-oriented, with aspirations to be a member of the European Union rather than a member of a Middle Eastern polity.

While multiple identities are a normal historical and social phenomenon, authoritarian politics oppose a pluralist understanding of social reality In hegemonic polities, where the state apparatus controls all spheres of life, the "normal" interaction of social groups, ideas, opinions and cultures is forbidden.(1) This political engineering obliterates or obfuscates socio-cultural differences and has been used by many states in the early phases of nation-building. However, when such political manipulation continues in the later stages of governance, it has a dramatic impact on society. It creates a fixed, national identity, which the state attempts to protect from outside influences.

This theory of governance stems from the Jacobin tradition of the French Revolution and is also inherent in a corporatist system, where the state indirectly or directly maintains control over the social sphere and tries to shape society in concentric circles around the state. A corporatist regime is hegemonic, but also has an elaborate social design. For example, antagonism is not allowed between social classes and it is believed that there is no need for civil society or labor and professional organizations. The state dominates political, social, economic and cultural spheres and institutions and also prevents institutions and social relationships from developing autonomously

Such Jacobin policies result in the dwarfing of civil society and everything associated with it, including religion. In many cases, religion and other aspects of the social realm are controlled by the state. This grip weakens only in the face of modernization and widening political participation. Religion and politics are not separated and, hence, the administration of religious affairs becomes a task of the state, and inevitably a political function. The corporatist structure is therefore unable to launch the process of secularization. So instead of placing the sacred in the social domain, thus making faith a matter of personal preference and a civil societal preoccupation, the state is made sacred.

The corporatist structure also means that the state controls all political activity. When politics and the state are perceived as synonymous, the political order loses its role as a mediator between the state and civil society Touraine warns about the danger of confusing the institutional domains:

If we are to create democracy, we must ... make a distinction between state political society, and civil society If we confuse the state with political society, we will soon subordinate the multiplicity of social interests to the unifying action of the state. Conversely; if we confuse political society and civil society, it is no longer possible to see how we can create a political and juridical order that is not a mere reproduction of the dominant economic interests. The confusion of the two realms also might leave to the state sole responsibility for ensuring that society is managed coherently In both cases, there is no space left for democracy. Democracy concerns political society, but it is defined by both the latter's autonomy and its own role as a mediator between the state and civil society A direct and unmediated confrontation between the state and civil society might lead to the victory of one over the other but never to the victory of democracy.(2) This analysis sheds light on the historical experience of many post-colonial societies that emerged after the collapse of cosmopolitan empires. The state's unchallenged and unmediated role during the nation-building process and afterward has led to an elitist definition of nation and citizenry In many ways, the communication between civil society and state institutions that democracy requires remains fundamentally uni-dimensional, flowing only from the state to society. Because of this, the formation and expression of different opinions are suppressed.

As modernization advances, this tightly tailored "nation keeping" (the making and taming of the nation) scheme is doomed to failure, and a range of conflicts, generated internally and externally, arise as the political order begins to destabilize. This process leads to repression at home, causing new rifts between society and state and between the country and the international order, due to the regime's unsatisfactory civil rights record.

The hegemonic model requires tight control of education, the media and legal and political processes. The state's tight grip on society is legitimized by rallying people around the nation-state. Nationalism is the ideology used by the new governing elites. Because they need to consolidate states first and shape nations later, I call this approach the `state-nation model' rather than the nation-state model.

Effects of the Hegemonic Model on National identity,

In multi-ethnic, multi-cultural societies, the definition of nationhood and citizenship may be based on the ethnicity; religion and cultural identity, of one of the national groups, most often the majority group. In spite of the dominant group's claim that citizenship is only political, not ethnic, other ethnic or religious groups typically feel excluded and marginalized as they are suppressed in the name of national unity Such a policy sows the seeds of conflict, which is further aggravated by economic disparity and the absence of free and pluralist political expression.

Social science suggests that individual and national identities are defined by their relationships with other individuals and nations.(3) National identity, must be accepted by the individuals and social-cultural groups in that nation and this can only happen if they feel included, equal, empowered and motivated by the nation.(4) Inclusion and motivation can be spurred by education based on a common language and culture, by political participation or by enjoying the benefits of economic growth.

When national identity, is not a construct negotiated by the citizens of that nation, it creates problems for neglected and excluded groups that can escalate into perceived security threats by the hyper-sensitive state. Exaggerated security consciousness can often lead to authoritarian policies that prevent the system from becoming fully democratic and pluralistic.

In addition to the problems security threats pose, the hegemonic state also faces challenges to their legitimacy. In hegemonic polities, elites tend to govern the state. Elite decisions regarding social welfare and governance have often been incorrect, creating bitterness and discontent. Also, as the majority of new nation-states were born out of the debris of colonial empires and traditional social formations, the new ruling elite tends to be anti-imperialist and anti-traditionalist, because they have seen both systems inhibit development. As religion lies at the core of tradition, it is no coincidence that the new nationalist elite tends to be determinedly secularist. The secular approach attempts to cut society's attachment to tradition at its most vital...