So you said ‘tutelage'?

Ekrem Dumanlı

Yawning is contagious. If a person starts to yawn at a public gathering, even the most vigilant may fall victim to dozing off in a daydream. Collective yawning sessions are even more infectious! So, too, the last lullaby, sung in chorus, vindicates and absolves the state, turns it into a sacred metaphor. Moreover, this collective hypnosis is performed by those very masses today who, until very recently, antagonized the state in the past. And, unfortunately, this campaign of collective glorification of the state is being waged against the groups that have never exhibited any hostility towards the state.

Certain “Islamic” intellectuals who, in the past, argued, "This country is a non-Islamic land [Dar al-Harb] where Friday prayers cannot be performed," are now appearing on TV, orating on the state power, the sanctity of the state or state secrets. But they used to define this state as a false deity or evil power (taghoot). What a transformation they are undergoing! They submit fully to that taghoot on the one hand and, with an iron hand in a velvet glove, try to intimidate the people who have always abided by the law by accusing them of organizing against the state.

They once blamed the modest opinion leaders for being “pro-state” and accused those moderate and peaceful groups who rejected violence and armed struggle of “being cowards and faint-hearted” and labeled the rejection of anarchy as “submission or slavery to the state.” Nowadays, they are losing their heads as they utter the word “state” and force everyone to kneel before their “new state.”

The rule is simple: Those who see themselves as the “real owner of the state” want to see everyone as slaves. This is how it works. And this is the real tutelage. It is an outdated concept. A modern state is not sacred, and you cannot expect everyone to deliver their minds, souls and wills to it. The state's duties are obvious: to ensure public order, administer justice and provide services to people. It will fulfill these duties using the taxes collected from the citizens. In other words, the boss of the state is the public, the citizens.

In countries like Turkey, where fundamental rights and freedoms are not properly implemented and the awareness of taxpayers has not transformed into an urge for democratic review and the state avoids a full audit, civil society culture cannot take root in a short time. Then, the state attempts to build civil society and forces certain civil society organizations to confront other CSOs. Those who, in the past, consecrated the state with different terms were trying to achieve the same goal, but it didn't work because it is no longer possible for the state to shape an open society.

I must tell the political Islamist intellectuals the bitter truth: In the past, you were dissidents, and using this advantage, you were able to develop ideas and refresh points of view. Today, you are becoming part of the status quo and creating enemies with your vicious cycle and arrogance. You place yourselves in the shoes of the state and see everyone as an “internal enemy” or an “internal threat” and share the old state's sins. As you are afraid to criticize the internal system and you perceive yourselves as embedded in it, you are facing the risk of making two mistakes simultaneously. The first is to turn a blind eye to the tutelary character of the system and its patronizing and transforming practices, and to create imaginary enemies out of the people whom you are ordered to purge. The second mistake is to perceive the internal system as your own product and to maintain the dissident rhetoric at a global level. Both are illusions and self-deceptions and efforts to buy time.

Animosity toward the state and sanctification of the state are both mistakes. Those who control the state apparatus cannot see the flaws and malfunctions of that apparatus and they see everyone as a potential threat. Isn't it a grave error for the people who are sympathetic even to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and its “parallel state offshoot,” the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), which killed tens of thousands of people, to label the world's most peaceful movements a “gang,” or liken it to an “alternative state?”

If you accuse foundations, associations and organizations that establish platforms to conduct their activities of being parallel state networks, this abuse will eventually recoil on yourself. If a so-called think tank attempts to disseminate fears of so-called parallel networks in society and if its members simultaneously seek to be appointed to state posts, won't it face the same accusations? If it plays an active role in appointments, promotions and demotions and if its revenues continually increase, it wouldn't be surprising to hear similar accusations voiced against it.

Everything should be kept in the proper perspective. If you call a community a “parallel state,” then you are accusing all communities of this role. That is the worst of it. The relatives of those who are at the helm of the country establish foundations and associations, build schools and dormitories for students and lead university foundations. They do this as a service to society. What if some tactless person were to accuse them of being a “parallel state?” There is no end to such nonsense. If you get rid of participatory democracy and resort to anachronistic pro-status quo practices, then you modify the genes of civil society and overstep the legitimate boundaries of the state.

Such manufactured concepts as new tutelage, parallel networks and alternative states have no sociological or political meaning. It appears that some people who are plus royaliste que le roi are trying to intimidate, discourage and silence certain groups. As Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen put it, "No one seeks to quarrel with the state or the government." Everyone is obliged to fulfill their requirements for a participatory democracy. Some erstwhile Islamists who are now intoxicated with the blessings of political power are calling on everyone to indulge in a lethargy of thinking or to join in collective yawning sessions. This is a blow not only to the intellectual dynamism of Islam, but also to the intellectual diversity of people who are supposed to find solutions to global problems. And no one can pay this bill.

Should these be qualities of opposition and debate?

Unfortunately, "execution brigades" have been formed; the brigades include emergent so-called columnists. None of them were known a few years ago. But now they appear on TV as “journalist-writers.” They send a lot of tweets; local party administrations are told to follow the messages of these people. Some of them have no background other than working for lesser-known websites. Some of them are promoted as "hitmen" who rely on lies, defamation, propaganda and distortion.

Some newly recruited figures have been included on the list of unfaithful persons. The general idea of how one gets promoted these days is to attack the Gülen movement and undermine its image. However, they do not know that those who fear God have no fear of others.

I am not talking about some dark messages sent to columnists and writers in the form of readers' comments. These are people who hold crucial positions in party organizations and who have strong reputations. For instance, one of the writers arrogantly said: “Like every other community, this one will also bow.” Wow! What a grave accusation and unbalanced statement. What community with principles of religious unity and a tradition of Sufism or order would submit to a political power? How arrogant is this?

There is something else we need to focus on: When these emergent hitmen took reign in the market and attracted the attention of party headquarters, renowned conservative columnists were also affected. These hitmen attack not only imaginary enemies but they also place pressure on renowned figures in conservative circles. Their emphasis and accusations, “We are staging a bitter struggle here whereas you remain silent,” drive reasonable people to the corner and to join their ranks. They feel a sense of ambivalence between the desire to benefit from the good of being in power and the fear of being labeled by the newly emergent teams of hitmen. This is a bitter test.

The current course of events is moving towards a sense of extremism that would remove prestigious people from their positions. Members of a motivated generation look for opportunities to use current developments as a means to achieve their goals. However, people who are known for elegance and having a balanced approach cannot deal with these frantic kids. If they do, that would be the end of their stance. And if they stay as they are, it is possible that they will be "dealt" with.

These are difficult days for all. Once this period is over, it will become evident who considered his conscience in his writings and who wrote his columns upon instructions. Those who now think the paper they are writing for is truly a newspaper will not be able to look their children in the eye. I wish people don't lose their reason and I wish they don't forget that they will be held responsible in the hereafter.

Published on Sunday's Zaman, 15 December 2013, Sunday