Erbakan, Fethullah Gulen and Erdogan

Yasin Doğan

Years ago I wrote an article that discussed the differences in style and method between Necmettin Erbakan and Fethullah Gülen. The difference that became salient particularly during the Refahyol era, when the Welfare Party (RP) and the True Path Party (DYP) formed a coalition government, and during the Feb. 28 process was that Erbakan tended to give inward-oriented messages while Gülen would give outward-oriented ones.

The former would take into consideration the sensitivities of his own supporters while the latter would attach more importance to the sensitivities of other people and the people outside. Thus, Erbakan would have a difficult time embracing different groups and as a result his movement was perceived as an isolated and self-contained one. On the other hand, Gülen was seen as more open to the outside world and readier to embrace diversity.

In general, religious movements tend to be introverted while political ones are supposed to extroverted. While religious communities are characterized by strict identity characteristics and an amplified sense of belonging, political parties are known to have looser identities and flexible commitments on the part of their members. Thus, political parties do not formulate instructions or binding rules for every aspect of life. On the other hand, religious communities may be less lenient and more domineering when it comes to their members being compliant with the rules they set forth.

Despite these sociological differences between religious communities and political parties, we saw that the RP tended to act more like a religious community, attempting to interfere with every single act and the behavior of its members and voters.

Moreover, Erbakan acted less like a political party leader and more like a community leader who would regulate the lives of his followers. This position would necessarily lead to an inward-oriented discourse being promoted as the concerns of a particular group. Although the Gülen movement, too, accommodated a certain level of allegiance and close solidarity among its members, we observed that their discourses were more open, more embracing and more flexible. Even some statements Gülen made during the Feb. 28 process were hotly debated because of this difference of style. Yet, this difference of discourse and method proved harmful for Erbakan and his party and beneficial for the Gülen movement.

Gülen’s attitude of paying attention to the issues and moods of different social groups and of being open to the external world has paid off by his being recognized by a greater number of people. On the other hand, Erbakan’s discourses, which would cause concerns in outer circles but motivate the inner ones, increasingly marginalized the movement. This is because the populism-centered attitudes that appeal to only to one’s own base may produce a dedicated mass of followers but will end up in scaring a larger audience.

Thus, we observed that Erbakan did not act in a political manner while Gülen paid greater attention to the existing structure and circumstances of society at large, acting in such a manner to be appealing to a broad range of people.

Based on this analogy, we see that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan similarly not only pays attention to the sensitivities of his supporters, but also addresses the concerns of all social groups. Erdoğan does not opt for a preachy style that would have him give cheap rhetorical speeches to his supporters while urging outsiders to stay outside.

He does not allow any concessions concerning his values and principles, but he also tries to understand the concerns and worries of those who are not like him. His statements about understanding the sensitivities of the 42 percent after the referendum can be understood in this context. And the best example of those who are content with self-styled cheap rhetoric intended to charm only one’s own followers is the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP). The BDP, stuck with electoral support of 5-6 percent, is increasingly becoming more and more marginalized and in this process of self-marginalization, it is distancing itself from the realities of the country and the potential of becoming a mass party.

In every election where they can embrace their inner and outer circles simultaneously and pay attention to all concerns, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) can boost its votes and amplify its social support.

This is the very fact that the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which would parrot the same stale arguments after the referendum and instill fear in society, fails to comprehend. When you sever your ties with your own audience and distance yourself away from their concerns, you will be doomed to become smaller and smaller. Likewise, you will be destined to remain marginal since you failed to open up to all social groups and address them equally.

What made Gülen lead a large social movement and Erdoğan a big political movement is this human-oriented perspective and the method and style they employ in winning the hearts of people.

Published on Today's Zaman, 01 October 2010, Friday
(Turkish original appeared on Yeni Safak Daily on 30 September 2010, Thursday)