'Achievements made over last century being undone'

Ali Bulaç is a famous writer and columnist known for his contributions in the field of domestic and foreign policy as well as modernization issues in the Middle East.

He has been writing about Islamist views and movements for years. A columnist at Zaman daily, Bulaç stressed that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has become more marginalized over the last decade in an exclusive interview with Turkish magazine Aksiyon.

You raised some objections to the AK Party in the past. Are current developments a surprise to you?

No, not at all. I raised some objections when the party was founded. The doctrine they picked as a foundation was wrong. They called it “reconciliation." And their ideology stressed that it is not possible to come to power by relying on the ideology of late Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan. The domestic and international actors would not allow them to pursue a policy like Erbakan's because Turkey is situated in a very complicated region. Therefore, they believed that the best way to deal with this complicated setting was to adopt a policy and approach of reconciliation and leniency.

So who would they reconcile with?

They would have made a deal with international influential circles, the US, Israel, Britain, the military and civilian bureaucracy and capital holders. I said this doctrine was not right because there are factors contributing to the exacerbation of the problems Turkey is experiencing. The US has designed the region. Palestine is under occupation. The Western world is supporting Israel. The Middle East is being ruled by repressive regimes and dictatorial governments. However, people are developing democratic demands. Eventually, the regimes will have clashes with the people over such demands. Likewise, there is potential for conflict over the vast resources in the region. But this wealth is not shared and distributed fairly. If you decide to deal with these powers without offering an alternative to this, this would cause a problem eventually. When dealing with bureaucracy, Turkey is a guardianship regime. If you deal with them to do politics, you should note that they hold the power to have the final word. But the AK Party decided to run for office without considering these cardinal questions or offering any plausible alternatives to these problems.

So what did it mean to run for office without offering any alternative?

Devout Muslims in Turkey were left out of the system during the republican era. But they did not have any major projects in three main fields: education, economy and law. They held that they would do good things because they are honest people. At this point, we see that power actually has a corrupting effect.

This was inevitable. But they believed that a different outcome was possible. However, this is against the laws of the nature. There is huge disparity between the world's regions and classes. This is caused by how we define the power relations in a modern sense. If you do something without questioning this, the result would be no different.

But you actually supported the ruling party. What were you thinking when you did this?

They received 34 percent of the vote in the November 2002 elections. The popular support increased to 50 percent within a few months. They were generally accepted. I supported them, despite my criticisms, up until 2006, because they faced an opposition that couldn't win. During this period, they developed a policy of zero problems with neighbors in the Middle East. The AK Party was an umbrella party and a coalition. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was a symbolic name. They preserved this profile up until 2011.

So why are we experiencing this polarization?

When they received 50 percent of votes in the 2011 general elections and 58 percent in the referendum, they decided to part ways with their partners.

How do you evaluate this?

This means that they will not act in cooperation with the groups and circles that supported them in the past and that they will implement their own projects and change the characteristics of the state. This caused panic in the partners who started to raise objections. First, the liberals withdrew their support. The liberals had agreements with the US and NATO. The US would focus on the Far East, leaving Middle Eastern affairs to Turkey; so they created a role for Turkey that would redesign the region. The political preferences and support of the US have been the main factors in the economic rise and betterment in Turkey. This has remained the case up until 2011. But I argued back then that they would not be able to handle the situation because they made extensive and unbearable commitments. And once they started acting against these commitments, they considered the popular support for them would be sufficient. In short, they believed that they will be able to create a new Ottoman-style rule in the region and include the Arabs and the Kurds.

Did any member of the government make this claim explicitly?

Yes, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said this in Kayseri. He said nothing can be done in the region without Turkey's consent because we are a NATO-member country.

Why did the government prefer this path of action?

The AK Party was misled by the broad social and popular support for them and economic growth. But the US is the main drive behind this growth. The AK Party believes stability rather than democracy is essential for sustainable growth. So they decided to avoid anything that could do harm to stability. But they needed a political and economic model. The model they were seeking was something like that of South Korea in the 1970s and modern-day Russia and China. So they decided to sustain economic growth in an authoritarian regime that guarantees absolute stability.

Did they really think this way?

Distancing yourself from NATO and the European Union is a huge mistake [when it comes to] policy on Syria. So it is not an exaggeration to argue that Turkey holds the greatest responsibility in the exacerbation of the crisis in Syria. The government realized that it was no longer possible to act together with the international system in this crisis. On the domestic level, they decided to redefine Turkey, but they discarded all their previous partners. Who were these partners? The liberals. They are a group of intellectuals, journalists and academics. It was easy to silence them because they were not a social group. Who were the other partners? Religious communities. So you need to silence them as well. They developed some tactics to do this. So we are here now.

In reference to the initial years of the AK Party, you said Erdoğan was a symbol for the party. But today, Erdoğan is greater than the party. How did this change take place?

There is now an AK Party, but we are unable to define it properly. Do the lead AK Party figures agree with Erdoğan? Or are they just standing there? I think that they are just watching what is happening. Even on TV, the prime minister implied that only a few AK Party figures agree with the prime minister's strong and harsh rhetoric. Even Binali Yıldırım, the party's mayoral candidate in İzmir, said the prime minister's discourse and rhetoric did harm to Yıldırım's image in the city. I think that Turkey cannot be governed by the AK Party, even if the AK Party receives 50 percent of votes in the March 30 elections. There is extreme polarization in the country. This is not a problem that can be solved by the ballot box.

Is it not the prime minister who actually contributes to the polarization?

The prime minister is doing this as part of a political and election strategy. This is very dangerous, however, from the perspective of political sociology. The AK Party's political rivals are political parties, not the Hizmet movement -- which is not a political party. It is really dangerous to consider a social group your opponent in politics. This causes polarization within society. Because it is opposed to a social group, the ruling party jeopardizes social peace and cohesion. And this is a first in Turkey. This is not something we have encountered before. The prime minister is attacking, polarizing and alienating the people. This is very serious and dangerous. And some papers that are close to the government actually exacerbate this problem by generating an image that has nothing to do with reality.

We recognize those supporting this image as being a part of conservative circles. Why is that?

There is something really sad going on here. Muslims have not been able to share power in Turkey. In addition, they failed the test of turmoil. Most importantly, people no longer hold trust in an Islamist government because of this failure.

What sort of disruption does this lack of trust cause?

If this “lack of trust crisis” spreads to Islam itself, this could lead to extensive secularization because people usually consider the acts of members of a religion rather than the religion itself when it comes to matters that affect them directly. If they conclude that Islam breeds corruption, this will become a grave problem.

The government is trying to divert attention away from charges of corruption and bribery. But Islamic groups and communities have remained silent. Why would they do this?

They basically say that this is a political operation being carried out by domestic and international actors against the government. But a deeper analysis reveals that Islamic groups actually internalize and justify corruption. This is very, very dangerous. Even if they are part of an operation backed by foreign actors, the corruption charges are something that should attract a great deal of attention. An investigation into these allegations must first be done. Prosecutors, judges and police officers were removed or reassigned to other positions. This will be someday discussed. I am really concerned by the internalization of the corruption charges by Islamic communities.

Why do Islamic communities, foundations and groups tolerate this? Are they not aware of the danger?

Islam explicitly prohibits bribery and corruption. These communities are very aware of this. But in this era, most of the religious communities and groups, including municipalities, receive payments or benefits from public institutions. Large sums of resources were allocated to these groups. In the past, a religious group was able to survive by depending and relying on its own resources. But now they rely on money given by others. So they eventually become dependent on state support. Because of this, they remain reluctant to raise their voices against charges of bribery and corruption.

The state used to be demonized by Islamist groups in the past. But now they glorify it.

This is the real issue. But I think that this is unfair to Islamism. It is not Islamists who have promoted and sanctified the state. They never called themselves Islamists. I think Islamism is the greatest victim here. True, Islamist groups have a religious identity. But a distinction should be made between an Islamist and someone who identifies as being religious. This [latter group of people] observe some religious precepts. But that does not mean that they use Islam as a reference economically and in international politics. The kind of Islamism that is attributed to the AK Party is not the true version of Islamism. If they were Islamists, they would have criticized the state. But because they left Islamism, they made power and the state a reference point.

So could we argue that the AK Party transformed Islamists, not Islamism?

Yes. The transformation took place in two different forms. First, they employed Islamist intellectuals as public officers. This was a great disaster for the public. These intellectuals could have been influential within civilian life without being employed as public officers. This transformed the mentalities of Islamists. Second, they made religious groups dependent on their financial support. This also led to some sort of transformation.

We have observed that the Hizmet movement was alienated in this process. How should we interpret this process of alienation and demonization?

There are various reasons for this. First, the Islamist groups were tied to the state through public funds. So they owe the state. Second, they had some reservations about the Hizmet movement, which is different from the others in some respects. It is not dependent upon public funds. Third, this is the largest and most influential religious community in the country that generates its own resources. Fourth, it is internationally orientated. When you compare the AK Party and the movement, you will realize that the movement has international experience. They have schools and business enterprises in different parts of the world. And finally, and I see this as a flaw of the movement, the Hizmet movement was not warm to other Islamic or secular groups over the last decade. It deliberately stayed away from other communities in order to put emphasis on the fact that it is different. As a result, the Hizmet movement was alienated by the others.

Is it proper for a political administration to insult a group of people by calling them Hashashins, viruses and members of parallel state?

This is very disturbing. The insults should be taken seriously by other religious communities as well. Religious groups now hold some positions within the state and they play a role in commerce. But now some of these religious groups want to do harm to the Hizmet movement.

Let us recall that there was an action plan to deal with the AK Party and Hizmet movement. Today, the AK Party government is releasing members of Ergenekon. Are they not aware that the alliance with Ergenekon figures will destroy them eventually?

I do not think that the AK Party is acting in line with a party decision. There is huge disparity between the top and the bottom in this party. Somebody should raise a question and ask why this operation is being carried out against religious people. But people will only realize there is danger if they begin experiencing it. Everybody will be hurt by this.

So where are we heading?

A century-old Islamic achievement is being undone in this process. It is really painful to see this happening. Besides, our image in the Middle East is being eroded. We will be able to reclaim our strength and influence in the region only in two or more decades.

Is it wrong for the religious communities to be influential within the state?

If the state is not governed by the supremacy of law, then everybody looks for a position in the state. The communities cannot be blamed for doing this. What should be blamed are the totalitarian and authoritarian aspects of the state. The state itself is a community that views all others as rivals. There is only one remedy to address this problem: The state should be democratized and embrace rule of law. This latest corruption probe has proven this.

So Turkey should be democratized or...?

Or otherwise we will move toward an authoritarian regime. But this is not possible. The levels of education and income are getting better. Social dynamics will keep us away from being driven toward an authoritarian regime. So the state's role should be made smaller. There is no alternative to this. The state should delegate all social functions to society.

Do you think that this is going to happen?

I think that the process of democratization in Turkey is going to be fairly painful. The introduction of democracy within the century-old Islamic tradition was already troublesome. I hope that this will lead to constructive outcomes that will be useful to all religious communities.

Published on Sunday's Zaman, 30 March 2014, Sunday