The AK Party's missed opportunity?

In his book “Islam and the Myth of Confrontation,” Halliday opposes the entire thesis of “the clash of civilizations,” which he portrays as something of a myth or legend. His opposition is strong to arguments which demonize Muslims, responding to assertions that Islam supports terror by saying: “When terrorism first emerged, in the 19th century, its inventors were not Muslims. Both Northern Ireland and Sri Lanka, despite the fact that they are not Muslim countries, have experienced a great deal of terrorism. Those who carried out the Holocaust or expelled the Jewish people from Spain were not Muslims. In fact, to the contrary, it was Muslims who opened their arms to the latter. In many places throughout the world, it is actually Muslims who are the real victims of oppression and terror.”

These views are striking, and worthy of some respect. But because they are anathema to the ruling template, and to the popular trend, his views have never been as persuasive as those espoused by his teacher, Bernard Lewis. Books from Lewis like his “The Emergence of Modern Turkey,” or various books on Islam wound up helping shape the template through which Turkey and the Middle East were viewed from the West. This template, which was also influential in shaping the views of pro-Westerns in the Middle East, held to the belief that the crisis in Islam was due to the failure to renew the once advanced models for life in this area of the world, and due to the failure to keep astride with models based on Western values of democracy, citizenship, and human rights.

In short, here was the template set forth by Lewis for Turkey: “If Turkey has shown more development and modernization within the general framework of the Middle East, the roots of this lie in the secular policies imposed by the military. What's more, good relations between the West and Turkey are based on this foundation. If there is a deviation from secularity, not only will good relations with the West fail, but the current system of democracy in Turkey will not survive. If there is a true desire to see this carried on, the weight of the military within the system must be carried on. Otherwise the majority Muslim population of Turkey will not be able to keep a democratic system alive.” This mentality, referred to often by Kemalist circles, also formed the basis of legitimacy claimed by the West in its support of military interventions in Turkish government.

Later though, reforms brought in by pious politician Turgut Özal -- reforms that wound up modernizing and developing the country further -- as well as the successful spread of Islam's messages of tolerance and peace through the Hizmet (Service) movement and the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) successes on fronts like the EU accession process and various democratizing reforms all worked to strike heavy blows at this old template. Because, what people saw was that despite the diminishing role of the military, Turkey was not only becoming more developed but also more democratic, with its relations with both the Islamic World and the West in a healthy state.

To the contrary, academic Lewis and the rest of the neocon type school of thought, many social democrats, Green Party members and liberal politicians in the Western political arena began using this new situation in Turkey as a reference point. Ignoring accusations from home and abroad that they were secret agents working for the AK Party, these figures openly opposed anti-democratic moves unfolding in Turkey -- from the April 27 “e-memorandum” from the military, to attempts to shut down the AK Party. As the appearance of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the front cover of Time Magazine in 2011 seemed to show, the Western media was also supporting this trend.

This whole new perception of the way things were and are, based on a multifaceted and constructive foreign policy with roots in development, justice, democratization, and soft power, wound up exciting factions wishing to see change in the Middle East, mainly liberal and Islam-oriented factions. Because what this formula showed was that it was possible to protect Islamic values while also carrying on with democratization, development, and keeping relations with the rest of the world healthy and alive. The Turkish experience had generally a softening affect on the view of Islam taking a role in political movements in that region of the world. The leading role shouldered by more religious Muslims in the arenas of democracy and the economy were in fact the best responses possible to the rising Islamophobia in the West. It was a very literal way to show the world that not every Muslim was a terrorist.

In the meantime, the AK Party -- which served Muslims in the best way possible through these actions not only in Turkey but also in the world -- is for whatever reason quickly becoming distanced from its unique profile via recent topics that have entered onto the agenda like media freedom, the “dershane” or prep school closure question, and the quest to join the Shanghai economic group (Shanghai Cooperation Organization). Just as those domestically and abroad who had supported their original profile are filled with disappointment and disbelief, the AK Party's original attraction levels within the Middle East are also fast dwindling. And so, an historic opportunity is fast slipping away, as many like myself watch in astonishment, not able to understand how so much work and success can be thrown away without any precautions taken to prevent this from happening!