‘So what?’


A considerable portion of the reactions I receive on my analyses of matters related to Turkey has been shaped over the “optimism-pessimism” divide. It implies, often, that pessimism is a more correct approach, while optimism should be seen as naiveté.

It is partly understandable because of the history of unfulfilled promises and constant cheats that have defined Turkey’s path in the past decades. Wisdom says that it may be a trap.

That is the reason why my response to many of those reactions of my analyses is always the same. I tell them: “To understand Turkey and its people is equal to mastering a rational, consistent balance between optimism and pessimism. Turkey does the opposite: It pitches from one extreme or the other.”

Some reactions distinguish themselves as unrealistic or insincere. Often, points in criticism of the AKP’s decade fail because of the inability to make a connection between its pragmatism and the complex social realities which created it.

Furthermore, almost every critical point regarding the sincerity of the AKP needs a sincerity test itself. As it turns out, many of those who have held a secret agenda theory have proven to act from an opposing secret agenda themselves.

Transitional eras and powerful reform processes do this to you: Like what is happening with many domestic and international actors and monitors of Turkey, your realism and sincerity are under a ruthless litmus test.

It was Yossi Beilin’s views, I must confess, that made me write the lines above. A veteran Israeli politician and the architect behind the Oslo Accord and Geneva Initiative between Israel and Palestine, Beilin told Today’s Zaman the following about the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) peace talks and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s personal ambitions: “I am reading interpretations that Erdoğan is doing it [peace talks] for the presidency. Imagine that he does it only because he wants to become president. So what? Whatever the motivation is, it is very, very important.”




In his wisdom, Beilin sends out a wakeup call. His is a good point: “So what?” Why is it a good point? Simply because there are more than enough pretexts for all the adversary political forces of the AKP to fear monger and demonize Erdoğan’s ambitions, with a particular focus on his persona.

The entrenched warfare of resistance in Turkey to any change has often been successful, making observers forget that the AKP as the interlocutor of transformation is far too complex to let itself be fully instrumentalized by its leader, no matter how popular. (If an alternative emerges, it will come from within the AKP in the future.)

With the lack of a reasonable alternative befitting a new Turkey to take shape, Erdoğan as a politician will seek a broader power base; it is natural for every politician to do so.

The problem is elsewhere.

The real, timely challenge in Turkey today is not in a frustrated opposition — formatted as a stumbling block for all change — but in how to increase the field of influence to steer the AKP to build a solid democratic foundation.

When the frustration is interlocked with blind animosity and hatred, and as long as the real intention is to fight for the status quo, reality can be evasive to observers’ eyes. Turkey now proceeds to two fixed destinations: a) The more Ankara, Abdullah Öcalan, the PKK’s armed command and Arbil progress toward a solution, the more inevitable a ground reform will have to be, and people need to realize that. The destiny of Turkey’s Kurds is not exclusively tied to Turkey but also to Iraqi Kurds and Syria. “Cheating” becomes too risky.

b) A new constitution is on every political party’s agenda, a major issue they campaigned for in 2011. It naturally feeds the opposition’s frustration when the AKP and the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) mean serious business regarding a new constitution. Realistically, the issue is much less about a new (semi) presidential system and much more about proper checks and balances, rule of law, (collective) rights and freedoms, local self-rule and modern secularism.

Change is bound to happen. If not managed properly and wisely, then, and only then, will we have reason for pessimism.

About yavuzbaydar

Yavuz Baydar has been an award-winning Turkish journalist, whose professional activity spans nearly four decades. In December 2013, Baydar co-founded the independent media platform, P24, Punto24, to monitor the media sector of Turkey, as well as organizing surveys, and training workshops. Baydar wrote opinion columns, in Turkish, liberal daily Ozgur Dusunce and news site Haberdar, and in English, daily Today's Zaman, on domestic and foreign policy issues related to Turkey, and media matters, until all had to cease publications due to growing political oppression. Currently, he writes regular chronicles for Die Süddeutsche Zeitung, and opinion columns for the Arab Weekly, as well as analysis for Index on Censorship. Baydar blogs with the Huffington Post, sharing his his analysis and views on Turkish politics, the Middle East, Balkans, Europe, U.S-Turkish relations, human rights, free speech, press freedom, history, etc. His opinion articles appeared at the New York Times, the Guardian, El Pais, Svenska Dagbladet, and Al Jazeera English online. Turkey’s first news ombudsman, beginning at Milliyet daily in 1999, Baydar worked in the same role as reader representative until 2014. His work included reader complaints with content, and commentary on media ethics. Working in a tough professional climate had its costs: he was twice forced to leave his job, after his self-critical columns on journalistic flaws and fabricated news stories. Baydar worked as producer and news presenter in Swedish Radio &TV Corp. (SR) Stockholm, Sweden between 1979-1991; as correspondent for Scandinavia and Baltics for Turkish daily Cumhuriyet between 1980-1992, and the BBC World Service, in early 1990's. Returning to Turkey in 1994, he worked as reporter and ediytor for various outlets in print, as well as hosting debate porogrammes in public and private TV channels. Baydar studied informatics, cybernetics and, later, had his journalism ediucatiob in the University of Stockholm. Baydar served as president of the U.S. based International Organizaton of News Ombudsmen (ONO) in 2003. He was a Knight-Wallace Fellow at University of Michigan in 2004. Baydar was given the Special Award of the European Press Prize (EPP), for 'excellence in journalism', along with the Guardian and Der Spiegel in 2014. He won the Umbria Journalism Award in March 2014 and Caravella/Mare Nostrum Prize in 2015; both in Italy. Baydar completed an extensive research on self-censorship, corruption in media, and growing threats over journalism in Turkey as a Shorenstein Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
This entry was posted in Turkey. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s