Although Journalists and Writers Foundation officials deny being the 'spokesmen' of the Gulen Movement on visual and print media, their statements are commonly perceived as representing the movement. The foundation, in a way, functions as the movement’s institutional face. It has recently launched a website “Questions on Hizmet Movement”, entirely dedicated to addressing the frequently asked questions on the movement. Following is an interview conducted with the President of JWF, Mustafa Yesil, in attempt to find answers to oft-voiced public’s questions on the movement and to discuss and review the website initiative:
First of all, why did the Gulen Movement feel the need for such an initiative? What is the idea behind?
Hizmet Movement has always faced inquiries from the outset. We have responded them orally, in writing or electronically so far. Now, we would like to make the overall answers readily available to people. By this way, we aim to remove the information pollution-related obstacles to correct information instantly. Besides, we have learned and benefited greatly from the questions addressed. We witnessed, once again, the voluntary contributions of the public, noting the thankful expressions in their questions. Moreover, this enabled us to keep track of the updates around the question “What do people want to know?”
Do you agree with the public, on the whole or partly, in that the movement is not transparent?
I am aware of that public perception of the movement, yet I disagree with that. We have been trying to detect and understand the factors leading to such a perception. We are part of the same society and subject to the same laws. It is not appropriate to accuse someone for not being transparent, without legal grounds. But I would like to underline a few points here:
First of all, “transparency” is a commonly abused term. You have to think twice before accusing a certain community using such terms. In fact, when whoever voicing such claims is questioned, what each one of them considers non-transparent turns out to be different than the others. Those holding a fictional view of camia (community) may criticize “non-transparency” as answers they find in the movement do not match with the fictional entity in their mind. Turkey experienced a very distressing period of military domination. Today, when still under its effect, it is essential to note that not only Hizmet but all the social communities have been unable to express themselves freely and its sympathizers have gone through serious investigations only due to their support. Just like any community, Hizmet always desires to express itself, share and publicize its activities as the ongoing both national and global initiatives can find support only when introduced and publicized. ‘Transparency in a civil organism’ refers to its principles, administrative structure, volunteer and donation sources, and an inclusive mechanism open to public in its field of activities. Considering this set of criteria, the movement explained itself over and over again. Besides, to verify the validity, it has organized trips to the relevant institutions and been subject to numerous academic studies.
It should be reminded that a trust-based civil organization is supposed to operate by transparent principles and its volunteers’ contribution. A closed-door structure damaging the trust will cost it dearly as it will lose support and the overall public recognition. In its active 40 years, Hizmet has never experienced such a public trust crisis; on the contrary, it has survived into 2010s with an ever-growing trust and support. No one can explain the existing support with anything but the movement’s credibility. The funny thing worth mention is that, the sympathizers are actually supposed to question ‘transparency issue’ as no one can force them into volunteering in a work that they doubt. Additionally, it shouldn’t go unnoticed that when the adherents maintain their support and express their trust explicitly, outsiders’ “transparency” accusations mean insult to their commitments.
Second, Hizmet Movement is active in over a hundred countries each with its specific legal regulations and political bodies. If the movement had a concern over its own transparency it wouldn’t dare such a global expansion. We are talking about a consistently, sometimes daily, investigated movement in a vast region ranging from Afghanistan to the US. Moreover, it deals with “education”, a field that every nation is sensitive about. Governments and public become even more sensitive and selective when education is in question. In a way, Hizmet proved its credibility with regard to ‘transparency’ by engaging in such a delicate field as education. And I have to say that, Hizmet is currently subject to various controls and inspections in over a hundred countries. How much more does a movement, active in many countries from East to West, need a transparency test?
Numerous names have been given to the community that you are involved in: Hizmet Movement, camia (community), hizmet volunteers etc. What do you name it?
Unofficial, volunteer-initiated civil society bodies do not have official names. In other words, a title is not granted you by an official institution. So it is no surprise that various names exist. Nobody can compel you to use a certain name either. What is in question is a civic phenomenon, anyway. The word “Hizmet”, literally, means the body of activities carried out seeking both local and universal common good and solutions to social problems, without expecting anything in return. Some call it “camia” (community) as well. It doesn’t really matter indeed. What matters is to avoid titles insulting people that are devotedly striving to do something. In this regard, our personal preference is the title “Hizmet” which has no implication of individual ambitions and indicates collective awareness. Moreover, here is its accepted way: You address someone with what he/she replies when asked for his/her name. For example, you cannot call a man “Ali” if he answers ‘Hasan’. If the people call themselves “Hizmet Movement”, it is more appropriate to call them so considering the tradition.
Above all, the collective conscience has named it “Hizmet”, with no endorsement by Fethullah Gulen or our friends in his immediate circle. The word ‘Hizmet’ means “the movement that developed under Fethullah Gulen’s spiritual and intellectual leadership” to many, which is also worth attention.
The movement’s name is also referred to in legal cases. It got a frequent mention, especially, in the match-fixing lawsuit. What do you think about the interesting allegations such as “They did it. They are trying to take the control over Turkish football”?
If you write down the issues that people criticize Hizmet for, you will immediately see the apparent contradiction. Some say “They will bring sharia rule”, while the others claim: “They are missionaries.” The accusations, in deed, are transformed depending on the period. While a certain accusation was raised yesterday, the opposite is said today. Sometimes, such claims might be deliberately brought to the scene to turn the public’s attention to another intended direction. And as Hizmet is a collective body, it cannot defend itself as immediately and fast as individuals and institutions. Hizmet is, in a sense, an innocent movement yet an easy target just like any innocent movement is. It doesn’t have a lawyer like a company. Accusations existed yesterday, still do today and, I think, they will do tomorrow as well.
Another point is the public perception which says “Gulen Movement’s stance is clear in case of an even minor crisis. The movement is not on Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s side but Abdullah Gul’s. What do you think about this perception?
As I have just mentioned, Hizmet is being immediately positioned somewhere depending on the current agenda. As is known, there are scenarios for upcoming presidential elections in which the Hizmet is automatically included. As a matter of fact, we are following these scenarios through media like you. It is certainly interesting to be able to foresee Hizmet’s stance when nominees are not named yet. Hizmet never has Presidential elections in its agenda. As emphasized in the previous press release we issued, Hizmet acts according to principles not individuals.
The people coming up with that thesis have their reasons. For example: “Abdullah Gul is easygoing and tolerant while Erdogan is relatively strict. That’s way Hizmet in on Gul’s side.” Does Hizmet have such a characteristic? What do you think about that?
We should ask those who claim so, actually. It is more appropriate to listen from them about what assumptions they base their claims on. On the other hand, the office of president is beyond politics while the Prime minister’s position requires him to be more active. The difference doesn’t necessarily make us conceive them different in terms of tolerance. As stated in Journalists and Writers Foundation’s press release delivered on April 24, 2012:
“Indeed, nothing would suit the plans of the advocates of the guardianship regime in Turkey than 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 the guardianship regime to take the country back directly by using its traditional 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.”Everyone knows how much Fethullah Gulen would like to return to Turkey. Why doesn’t he do then?
(One of the oft-voiced questions on “Hizmete Sorulanlar” website) As you know, he released a statement concerning this issue. Mr. Gulen prioritizes Turkey’s interests over his own in his every decision and step. His personal views never precede Turkey’s interests in his preferences. If he is not coming back, it is because he finds it more favorable for his country. On the other hand, what should be also discussed when his return is in question is that “Is normalization period in our country concluded? Or have the factors hindering normalization been eliminated? To what extent, are the risks threatening freedoms- even with 1% possibility, removed?”
Published [in Turkish] on Dipnot.tv, 22 January 2013, Tuesday
Related Article: Curiosity increases as Hizmet Grows
