Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a rather strange opinion piece doing the rounds in which she comments on the current situation in Turkey and the ongoing tension between the elected representatives of the Turkish people and the military.
The idea of an army under civilian control doesn’t seem particularly controversial to us, but Hirsi Ali opposes it, calling on the EU to abandon the notion that, “Turkey’s army should be placed under civil control like all armies in the EU member states. ” This is, she contends, perfectly consistent with liberalism, with the Kemalist Turks who ban schoolgirls from wearing hijab and who stipulate prison sentences for men who chew gum in front of statues of Ataturk cast as ‘liberals’; the heroes in Hirsi Ali’s titanic struggle between a liberal/military alliance and the so-called “Islamists” with their hijabi wives. Never mind, of course, that the “bad guys” have the backing of up to “70 percent of voters”.
As Hirsi Ali explains, this “70 percent of voters” have been hoodwinked by “dawa“:
…a tactic inspired by Islam’s founder, Muhammad. Dawa simply means to preach Islam as a way of life, including a way of government, perpetually and with conviction. Every convert is subsequently obligated to preach Islam to others, which creates a grassroots movement.
The confluence of Arabic terms, mention of the Prophet and talk of “government” adds to the dramatic effect of Hirsi Ali’s piece and will certainly elicit the desired response in her natural constituency. However, the fact is that, in this context, all Hirsi Ali is really saying is that the so-called Islamist government better reflects contemporary Turkish values and aspirations and that this is then reflected in the polls. In other words, the government reflects the aggregate will of the people.
However, in Hirsi Ali’s view, liberalism or amorphous “Western values” are best served not by supporting democracy as it is understood in the West, but by supporting the armed enforcement of ideology by the military.
Other liberal democracies in the West must stand by Turkey’s liberals in this difficult time. It is only a seeming paradox that support has to start by recognizing that the Turkish army is not like any other. The military has the unique task of safeguarding Turkey’s secular character.
Safeguarding its “secular character” from what exactly? According to Hirsi Ali’s piece, it’s from seventy percent of the Turkish people.
14 comments ↓
its not really surprising, she has probably reading Peter Singer who believes that it morally defensible (even desirable) to force Muslims to live under totalitarian forms of government, in order to safeguard the “West”.
When she says that voters have been hoodwinked, she opens the doors to fascism. Perhaps they (the Turks) need the particular insights afforded to a habitually lying fraudulent asylum seeker and cleaner, to better understand what is good for them.
I can only hope that she continues to read and regurgitate Singer, especially his recommendation on cross species procreation.
Ayan Magan (her real name) obviously has no idea whatsoever what a liberal democracy is all about. There’s nothing liberal about banning Kurds from speaking Kurdish, throwing people in prison for not showing enough reverence for a statue of a dead Turkish military leader or punishing people for denying the massacre of the Armenians. These are not values that any right-minded liberal should be supporting even if the alternative is an economically responsible, decent government run by a man who has the temerity to marry a woman who covers her hair.
The ruling party, AKP, won 34% of the votes in 2002; this gave them a 2/3 majority in the parliament. The remaining seats went to the only other party, CHP, whose votes exceeded the 10% barrage, and a few independents. 48% percent of the vote went to the trash if you like (not leading to any representative in the parliament). This seventy percent of the vote (or the Turkish people) you fancy is, well, your fancy.
Enough with this liberal/illiberal, religious/secular agitation. There are real (concrete, unspeculative) causes for concern about AKP governence.
Nihat, I’m living in Turkey right now, unlike yourself, and would like you to clarify those reasons.
Corruption? Economic issues? Why is the economy proceeding so strongly, 15 Qs of consecutive growth and a recognizable improvement in Western Turkey’s standard of living? Did the CHP’s Kemal Dervis solve these problems, or did he actually take loans from the IMF and just postpone the problems until the AK Party started addressing them? (2$ billion in 2000, which led to the collapse of 6 Turkish banks, no?)
Nepotism? Does the AK Party have anything which even approaches the incompetence of the ‘lost decade’ of the 1990s under Baykal, Ciller, et al?
Islamist take-over? Then why are they trying to join the EU and implement the acquis?
Undemocratic? Do you mean, like calling on the military to overthrow the government, that kind of undemocratic call?
Please do explain what you mean…
Statler,
Reference?
Peter W. Singer, “Time for Hard Choices: The Dilemmas Facing U.S. Policy Towards the Islamic World,” Analysis Paper #1 (October 2002)
?Bookings Institute
it came in my copy of pig shooters monthly, a peer reviewed journal I would highly recommend
Actually, I didn’t come up with the figure and don’t know or particularly care if it is true. Ayaan Hirsi cited it in her defence of Turkish military involvement in civilian politics. The issue isn’t whether it’s 20, 30, 40 or 70 percent of the population supporting the AK Party, the bigger issue (as far as I am concerned) is whether it is acceptable for the military in any country to involve itself in politics and to operate removed from civilian control. I don’t believe it is and I don’t believe that the armed enforcement of ideology is a hallmark of liberalism, liberal democracy or indeed an enlightened civilised society.
Its time for secular Turks to come out and attack our arguments. If your way is clearly superior to us backward Muslims , you should have no trouble in defeating us in a free contest of ideas.
After all we are backward worshippers of God, without the wit or wisdom to take on you supermen (cleverly disguised as beggars at the gates of Europe in your cheap grey suits and your graucho marx mustaches)
How Democracy hating, Statist, culturally Fascist, anti-Free Market, Ataturk adoring types can be labelled as Liberal, by any definition of the word? Has the meaning of the word changed suddenly, since the beginning of the crisis in Turkey? Or has the world gone barking mad finally?
On second thought, Ayan might be on to something.
When one looks to the war crazed Democrat candidates in the US, the luckluster performance of the Democratic Party in Congress in fulfilling its Iraq mandate, Mr Blairs New Labour in Britian, and Mr Howards ‘Liberal’ Party here in Australia, ‘Liberalism’ might have taken a plethora of new meanings.
Quite funny to think of Ms Ali as having something relevant to say?
Amir, your post got me thiniking
I don’t want to blog-whore so before I do can i get permission to post a link?
it’s a long post, don’t want to suck up all your bandwith
James, you are more than welcome to post a link, pingback a post here or even write a long comment! Thanks for asking though.
Thank You. As the post is a long one I will just leave a link.
http://wiskeytangofoxtrotoscar.....turks.html
You and all the regulars can leave questions, comments and or rude suggestions at the site.
[…] there you have it. Not only is Hirsi Ali a shill for military rule but she also believes Islamic schools, people who convert to Islam and people who burn […]
Leave a Comment