The discussions over the social service movement inspired by the views and ideas of Fethullah Gülen, which defines itself as “Hizmet,” are not peculiar to Turkey. A large number of articles, theses and books have been written and academic conferences and workshops have been held in a number of countries all over the world over the last decades to properly identify Hizmet and Fethullah Gülen, the intellectual center of this movement. From this perspective, the Turkish intellectual world could be said to be late in joining a comprehensive discussion on the meaning and position of the global phenomenon called Hizmet.
Another challenge is that Turkey’s long years as a closed society never allowed for the emergence of an environment open to criticism and free discussion. As a result of the long-standing guardianship by certain cadres within the military and other government institutions, even academic discussions in Turkey have proven vulnerable to flaws, misleading information, reductionist reasoning, exaggerations, false observations and material errors. As a result of the lack of free discussion and public negotiation, distinct ideological ghettos have emerged; the partisan populations of these ghettos have become accustomed to existing in isolation and therefore lack awareness of other lifestyles and viewpoints. It has become almost impossible to initiate a reasonable discussion on concepts and entities related to religion and religious practice. As a result, fruitless debates have continued without first coming to a common understanding of key notions such as religious orders (tariqat), belief (iman), religious community (cemaat), foundational tenets of faith (usul), matters of religious practice (furuat), and religious symbols (şiar).
In light of these reasons and considering the current discussions, it is necessary to elaborate more clearly on some issues regarding Hizmet. To this end, a number of questions could be raised with respect to the movement. We think it would be proper to offer responses to the following questions first:
- What is Hizmet and what is its main goal?
- Does this volunteer movement have a political stance?
- What are the values and rules that guide Hizmet’s involvement in the political arena?
In the second stage, there are more concrete matters to be discussed:
- What are Hizmet’s expectations of politicians and political parties?
- What is the nature of the relationship between Hizmet and the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government?
- Does Hizmet have “people” within the state?
- Is there a crisis between the movement and the AK Party?
- What is the response of Hizmet to its alleged manipulation of ongoing judicial and bureaucratic processes?
- What is Hizmet’s position regarding freedom of the press?
Hizmet is a faith-inspired civil society movement that seeks to create a culture of coexistence within universal, humanist values and is comprised of volunteers.
The essence of volunteerism is to make a contribution without the expectation of anything in return. Put a different way, whoever does his service with any expectations whatsoever would not be acting in the spirit of Hizmet.
Second, Hizmet, as a civil society movement, operates with a strictly civic character. It is not an organor an affiliate of a government program, political party or agenda. Likewise, this civil movement is not an opponent of any political party. In the final analysis, political scientists base the definition of a civil society movement on three main elements: It must be voluntary, autonomous and non-governmental. A social movement that fulfills these three criteria is considered a civil society movement and ought to be called such. For this reason, whoever seeks to ascribe a political agenda to Hizmet ignores the spirit of this civic movement. Likewise, as a result of its civic character, there is no official connection or hierarchy among the adherents of the movement, nor is there a central administration directing all of Hizmet’s efforts.
At this point, the discussions of the relationship between this movement and politics in particular should be carefully analyzed. Arguments suggesting that Hizmet is associated with a particular political party or is a secret supporter or opponent of a political party are not compatible with the essence of the movement. As uncompromising supporters of democracy, those who participate in Hizmet are respectful of all political movements that do not rely on terror and violence, which are rejected by universal legal standards. However, Hizmet does not pursue integration with or detachment from any democratic and non-violent political movements.
The growing respect for Hizmet in numerous countries and among varying religious, ethnic and language groups is attributable to its civic character. If people associated with the Hizmet movement had been involved in acts that violated this character or acted as representatives of political parties or government programs, they would not have been welcomed by cultures all over the globe.
But here is another critical point: As in any other social movement, some participants in the Hizmet movement may act contrary to the movement’s core value of civic volunteerism. However, these mistakes cannot be attributed to Hizmet. If such a person’s mistake has legal consequences or liabilities, the only proper recourse is to take this person before the courts and the legal process.
This description is being made to offer a small contribution to the ongoing debates in Turkey. Because of the focus of the long-standing debate on the Hizmet movement in Turkey, Turkish politics and its agenda have been taken as the main point of reference in our discussion as well. But it would be misleading to conclude that Hizmet is an exclusively Turkish movement. While from a historical and sociological perspective Hizmet certainly originated in Turkey, the values and the understanding it represents are universal.
Which political parties does Hizmet support?
Unlike political organizations, Hizmet, as a civil society movement,does not compel its participants to cast a particular vote or choose a particular party. The influence of such orders or instructions in a civil society movement is limited and, furthermore, risky.
But of course, sociologically, it is possible to talk about the impact of the values and perspectivesheld by this voluntary association, and those who consider these values may make some political inferences based on these perspectives. For instance, the adherents of this movement do not endorse any action that would undermine democracy and do not recognize the legitimacyof non-constitutionalregimes.
However, the interaction or communication between Hizmet and individual participants does not take place directly or by way of indoctrination. On the contrary, the individuals make their decisions based on the overall values of Hizmet.
After this introduction, it should be noted that, since the movement's inception, the principles that establishthe framework ofHizmet’s approach towards political parties as an association of volunteers have beenobvious. In the past individualseither did or did not lend their support to the policies and actions of political parties based on these principles, and this will remain the case in the future as well. The critical point here is that,for participants in Hizmet, political preferences are born out of common values rather than the political identities of the parties. For this reason, the adherents of Hizmet may choose to extend support to the actions of parties that promotecertain values.
It is possible to define the main framework for the values that determine Hizmet’sprimary approach towards political parties as follows: democratization, ensuring religious freedoms, the attainment of well-respected standards set by international institutions including the European Union, and expending efforts to promote the rule of law and human rights and freedoms. To this end, it is possible for participants in the Hizmet movement,as part of their personal civic duty,to lend support to those political parties that engage in politics to reach the abovegoals.
It should be recalled that in this definition, there is not a single reference to an organic bond between the movement and political parties. As long as a political party does not contradict the perspective and values of the people,does not rely on violence and terror, and conducts its politics according to the values highlighted above, it may be supported by those who respect the principles of Hizmet.
The people who volunteer in this movement have,from the beginning,always expressed support for the democratization of Turkey, standing strongly on the side of universal values. Hizmet has never failed to meet the expectations of the Turkish people with respect to further democracy in Turkey in the fields of religious freedoms, the use of the Kurdish language, the rights of religious minorities, EU membership and a civilian constitution. It should also be recalled that Hizmet has never lowered its standards for democracy and human rights below universal standards; rather, without further preconditions,it has mobilized its resources for a democratic and civilian Turkey. Hizmet has not ever approved of any discourse that would make it more difficult for Turkey to progress towards adoption of universal democratic standards, including those set by the EU.
Likewise, the efforts of Hizmet have achieved a level of public dynamism that has historical significance. The movement has made broad contributions to the political process in addressing the Kurdish question and the fulfillment of basic EU reformsthrough its influenceon a wide spectrum of society. However, during theseprocesses, the movementhas never sought to acquire power or become part of apolitical administration. Politics is an important actor in society; however, the role Hizmet and other civil society organizations play in the internalization of democracy at the grassroots level should never be overlooked.
Similarly, the fact that people have political convictions to promote democratization and human rights does not necessarily mean they are linked to a particular political party. According to their preferences, they extend support to a political party that promotes and protects certain values. Therefore, in the event that the political party they previously supported lowers its democratic standards, the participants in Hizmet would naturally reconsider their support.
The relation between Hizmet and politics as explained above is compatible with an advanced level of democracy. Individuals and civil society organizations extend support to political parties because of the values they promote. Not all individuals or members of civil society groups are ardent supporters of a political party, and they vote for a party because they support their policies, not because they are card-carrying members of these parties. This dynamic in the relationship between Hizmet and political parties is actually an assurance for the entire society. The ability of movements such as Hizmet to support parties because of their policies and to withdraw that support when necessary can be thought of as something like an electrical breaker. One should never forget that one of the lessons that Middle East politics teaches us is that the engagement of social movements with political parties, administrators or governments and their decisive stance to support them regardless of whether the parties lower their standards of human rights and democratization have always led to political crises.
Hizmet and AK Party
To consider this issue more concretely,there are ongoing discussions about the relationship between Hizmet and the AK Party. Different and sometimes incompatible assertions are made with respect to the relationship between the movement and the ruling party in Turkey. Before commenting on Hizmet's approach towards the AK Party, it is necessary to stress one point: that Hizmet's approach towards political parties did not start with the AK Party. The movement's view on politics was formulatedwell before the emergence of the AK Party, and Hizmet developed its stance vis-à-vis the AK Party in consideration of its general approach towards politics, as explained above.
The approach of Hizmetto its relationship with the AK Party is crystal clear. During the AK Party administration of this last decade, it is a fact thata significant progress was made and courageous reforms were introduced in the field of democratization and expansion of fundamental rights and freedoms in Turkey. It is unfair to ignore or minimize the contribution of the AK Party in this field. Hizmet has always been appreciative of all politicians and political movements that exert an effort to improve the image of the country, the AK Party included. During their administration, the AK Party and its top leadershiphave takenbold and commendable steps at critical junctures. As a result, they have attracted a great deal of popular support in elections, even surpassing 50% of the votes cast in the most recent parliamentary election. Hizmet appreciates the AK Party’s visible contribution to the attainment of democracy, the protection of human rights and the abolishment of military guardianship of civilian affairs.
Today, Hizmet asks for nothing from the AK Party other than perseverance in the pursuit of an agenda of democratization. Like everyone else seeking democratization, the major political expectation that Hizmet holds is consolidation of democratic gains and greater emphasis upon dealing with the pro-guardianship circles hidden within the state. Hizmet expects nothing from the AK Party other than the realization of these goals,whichserve all people in Turkey.
On the other hand, successes cannot be attributed to only one political party or group. This is why it should be noted that, in addition to the decisiveness of the political administration, the sensitivity and responsible action of civil society organizations has also played a determinative role in these efforts that have attracted the support and appreciation of the public during the AK Party's terms in office. This is also why it is essential to acknowledge the role, in addition to the contribution by the political administration, played by private citizens, including teachers, laborers, lawyers, executives, journalists, intellectuals and businessmen who have contributed to this process. The positive developments in Turkey today should be seen as the outcome of the sacrifices that these people have made over many years without expecting anything in return.
A rift between Hizmet and the AK Party?
In his sermons, speeches, articles and other works during a period of more than 40 years, the esteemed scholar Fethullah Gülen has always supported a human-centered approach to politics, stressed the importance of the rule of law, pointed out that democracy is a process from which we cannot retreat, tried to reinforce ethical values in society, noted that education and dialogue form the basis of social consensus and development, and he has provided a personalexample of how these principles can be put into practice. A detailed examination of his speeches and books will reveal that Fethullah Gülen diligently avoidsany attitude that mightlead to a crisis for the nation or the state. Mr. Gülen rejects any tumult that may lead to social or political crises and advocatesharmony, stability, service to society, and good conduct to those who listen to his counsel. In his sermons, he preaches to be "without hands against those who strike [us] and without speech against those who curse [us]." More specifically, he encourages individuals to make personal sacrifices for the sake of the safety and peace of the nation instead of fomenting crises forpersonal gain. This approach of Mr. Gülen and Hizmet epitomizes their well-advertised principle of “being in the foreground in service and in the background in seeking rewards for such service.”
In this context, the recent confrontation between the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and the judiciary, acrisis that some groups persistently blame on supposed tensions between the AK Party and the "Community," is completely outside the area of interest and responsibility of Hizmet. Contrary to oft-voiced claims, Hizmet takes no sides in this crisis. Furthermore, people who are inspired by Mr. Gülen's ideas are not encouraged in any way to become entangledin these debates. At a time when people should act hand-in-hand to tackle the country's serious problems, it is wrong to even imagine Hizmet as aggravating these crises. For more than 40 years, in the face of the threats that may disrupt the social order such as dissension and anarchy, Mr. Gülen has consistently advised dignity and discretion to the people who are inspired by his ideas.
The same groups that in the past criticized Mr. Gülen of being an excessive supporter of the state are now accusing him of fomenting a crisis that would trouble the state. The inconsistency of these groups who have made various claims about a “crisis between the Community and the AK Party” must always be kept in mind. Indeed, those who accused him of “seeking to establish a Shariah-based state” in the past were also quick to denounce him by saying he was “trying to Christianize the country.” We cannot afford to overlook these and similar inconsistencies in the claims made about Mr. Gülen at various times in the past.
Yet it is crystal clear that, as usual, there are certain ulterior motives behind the efforts to give the impression that the members of the police department and the judiciary, who are supposed to perform their duties according to the law, are connected to Hizmet. It is both dangerous and crude to make people targets of criticism solely due to their identity, skin color, and religious or philosophical affiliation instead of the quality with which they perform their duties. It is also a breach of fundamental human rights to label a person or a group as dangerous solely due to their philosophical beliefs. Thus, declaring a person as dangerous just because s/he respects Hizmet is a violation of basic human rights.
Those who advocate for democratization in Turkey as well as those who oppose it did not emerge only recently. In other words, the attitudes and probable approaches of the actors in our political history, which spans the last two centuries, are well known. Accordingly, it is not hard to understand the real motive behind the current attacks against public servants whose actions are attributed to the "Community": to weaken political will by creating friction between Hizmet and the AK Party and to hinder Hizmet's civil society activities.
Indeed, nothing would suit the plans of the advocates of the guardianship regime in Turkeythan just such a rift between Hizmet and the AK Party. At this point, it should not go unnoticed how the groups who today rejoice over any potential rift between Hizmet and the AK Party also positioned themselves during the parliamentary quorum crisis in the 2007 presidential election, the closure case against the AK Party, etc. Historically, Turkey is at a critical point. All actors have important responsibilities in this crucial period. It is important that people and groups who want to live in a democratic and developed Turkey should not be used as instruments of information pollution and ill-intentioned propaganda. It has now become harder for theguardianship regimeto take the country back directly by using itstraditional methods. Yet, this time, it may open wide the gates to its dark intentions through plots, rumors and by exploiting the weaknesses that can topple even the strongest of people.
Hizmet and the bureaucracy
It must be noted that Hizmet, as a global movement, has won the affections of people from all walks of life and from many countries around the world. As a human-centeredcivil societymovement that serves humanity in the spirit of Rumi and Yunus Emre, Hizmet has sparked interest in and mobilized the backing of numerous businessmen, academics, politicians, bureaucrats, and people of art and culture.
Here, two points should be underlined: Mr. Gülen's ideas draw the interest of many universities across the world and are discussed in various academics theses. Just as one can find people who love democracy both in Turkey and in France, for example, one can also find people who give credit to Mr. Gülen's ideas in various countries around the world.
Second, Mr. Gülen represents a legitimate approach shaped by Turkey's own past and culture. Mr. Gülen and the philosophy he represents symbolize an approach that has emerged from the historical roots of this culture and civilization. Therefore, people from all groups in our society have the legitimate right to wholeheartedly support these values and principles.
In this respect, it is quite natural that the public bureaucracy may include people who are inspired by the Hizmet movement. Moreover, it would be unfair to consider performing one's duties according tothe laws and regulations of the state as an effort to “take control of” or “infiltrate” the state.
Furthermore, when Mr. Gülen himself was tried on such frivolous charges, he was unanimously acquitted by the Court of Cassation (the decision by the 9th Penal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated March 5, 2008 and numbered 2007/6083-1328).
Hizmet and freedom of the press
In a statement he recently made, Mr. Gülen clearly declared his position, saying: “I believe freedom of expression and freedom of the press should be enjoyed in the broadest sense. Even if people exhibit ideas or views completely opposite to my own or if they—unfairly—blame me for what happened to them, I still believe that people should be free to enjoy their freedom of thought and expression.” Along the same lines, Hizmet, too, cherishes freedom of the press as a fundamental part of the freedom of expression and supports its full enjoyment in the broadest sense.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that several people or groups regularly criticize Hizmet by using freedom of the press in Turkey. In virtually all public debates, Hizmet is criticized in one way or another. To illustrate the tragicomic nature of this matter, it would be beneficial to note that even some people who publicly criticized Hizmet in the past were later labeled "pro-Gülen." The most upsetting part is that no concrete evidence is provided in support of the accusations that cast suspicion on Hizmet or the people who are inspired by Mr. Gülen.
On the other hand, those who use various platforms to claim that Hizmet is "targeting some journalists using a retaliatory approach via some people who infiltrated the state" are responsible for bringing legal action and demanding justice by providing concrete evidence for these accusations. People should refrain from resorting to unsubstantiated accusations, but instead apply to the judicial authorities by supporting their claims with material evidence.
Finally, those who claim that it is impossible or risky to criticize Hizmet must know that dozens of books that sharply criticize Hizmet and Mr. Gülen have been published in Turkey and new articles along the same lines appear every day.
Published on Journalists and Writers Foundation, 06 April 2012, Friday
Related Articles:
Hizmet and Politics:
- The Hizmet [Gulen] movement and politics
- Community service in the Gülen Movement vs. Political action
- Should the Hizmet movement form a political party?...
- The Gülen community and the AKP
- Gulen Movement: A civil society movement with no political ambitions
- Sabotage: Government - Gülen movement relations
- PM’s aide dismisses rift between AK Party and Gülen movement
- Scenarios explaining the attack on MİT
