July 25, 2012

Gülen Movement and Politics (2)

fgulen.org

Does the Gülen Movement engage in political rhetoric or partisan politics?

The character of the services (that the participants are engaged in providing) keeps them away from the everyday and largely pointless partisan fights and rhetoric of political parties; participants do not divert or exhaust their energies in political skirmishes. The effectiveness of the Gülen Movement’s activities arises from its openness and receptiveness, and the efficiency of available forms of representation. This quality of the Gülen Movement contradicts the dominant understanding of social movements in the West, which sees movements as always contentious and conflictual.

The Gülen Movement’s conscious avoidance of political contention reflects Fethullah Gülen’s evaluation of the failures in the last few centuries in Turkish history. He has been critical of those past failures and indicated what he believes to be the reasons for them: “Those who were in politics and those who supported them considered every means and action as legitimate and permissible if it would gain them position for their own team or party; they devised and entered into complex intrigues and deluded themselves that by overthrowing the dominant group and changing the party in power they would change everything and the country would be saved. Action should have been guided by thought, knowledge, faith, morality, and virtue rather than by political ambitions and hatred.” Thus, rather than any kind of politics, it is the religious and cultural vision of Hizmet that is central to its activities.

Does the Gülen Movement engage in identity politics (based on faith or nationality, for example)?

The Gülen Movement does not engage in identity politics. It does not seek to be different from other people, ethno-religiously, culturally or geographically. The Gülen Movement sees a radical form of identity politics as dangerous for society because of its intolerance, exclusivism, and self-defeating fundamentalism.

Movement participants accept and abide by Turkish and international norms, regulations and laws. They share the concerns and problems common to people all over the world, and work to contribute to their resolution. The worldview, intentions and efforts of the Gülen Movement are accepted and approved by the overwhelming majority of people in Turkey and by those who know their efforts outside Turkey. So the Movement is able to become an agent of reconciliation between diverse communities around the world. These efforts are put into practice through legal, formalized and institutionalized means.

The Gülen Movement is defined in terms of its social and multicultural relations; its intention to seek consensus among communities legitimates its transnational projects, so that it does not deviate into, or let others be led astray into, fundamentalism and sectarianism.

Does the Gülen Movement favor any political party or “wing” of politics?

There is no political wing, party or umbrella organization of the Gülen Movement. It does not have cliques or a radical-flank effect[1]. It has not become divided into radical and moderate factions. There has never been an extreme, radical or political group that defines the parameters of the Gülen Movement.

The Gülen Movement represents its understanding through formal institutions. As these institutions are mostly educational, they do not take sides with political parties. Thus, the Gülen Movement cannot be said to be based on, influenced by, affiliated with, or supporting the interests or policies of any single political party.

[1] The ‘radical flank effect’ is when political bodies set up or support moderate competitors to more radical groups. The political bodies do this to reduce support for the radicals and prevent reduction in the numbers and effectiveness of their own supporters.

Why does the Gülen Movement fall into the category of cultural or social actor rather than political actor?

Political actors are classified as interest groups and defined in relation to the government or other politically motivated or oriented entities in a political system, whereas the relevance and interests of social movements extend well beyond those areas to other institutional spheres and authorities. Political actors engage in action for reform, inclusion in and redefinition of the political rules, rights and boundaries of political systems; they therefore interact with political authorities and negotiate or engage in exchanges with them. They strive to influence political decision-making through institutional and sometimes partly non-institutional means.

By contrast, non-political actors address issues in a strictly cultural form or cultural terms, and bring issues forward into the public sphere. They choose a common ground on which many people can work together. They name and frame issues in a way that people can understand in the public sphere and then let them be processed through political means and actors.

According to these definitions, the Gülen Movement falls into the category of cultural or social actor rather than political actor. Although political action is legal, legitimate and indispensable for democracy, the Gülen Movement avoids formal politics, and acts at its own specific level within the limits to which it is entitled by law, aiming at well-defined, concrete, and unifying goals and services.

Is Gülen concealing his true intentions or hiding political intent?

No. Fethullah Gülen has been accused of politically-motivated subterfuge, of concealing his true intentions, of hiding a political intent and agenda. For instance, in 2000 a state security court prosecutor accused Gülen of inciting his readers to plot the overthrow of Turkey’s secular government. Fethullah Gülen described the charges as fabrications by a “marginal but influential group that wields considerable power in political circles,” and in 2006 he was acquitted on all counts.

Fethullah Gülen says he is “not seeking to establish an Islamic regime but does support efforts to ensure that the government treats ethnic and ideological differences as a cultural mosaic, not a reason for discrimination. Standards of democracy and justice must be elevated to the level of our contemporaries in the West.”

Related Articles:
Print | Save as PDF