A blueprint for the Middle East

In recent years the interest of Arabs towards their Turkish neighbour has grown hugely. The main Pan-Arab newspapers such as Al Hayat and Al Quds Al Arabi give events in Turkey a lot of coverage. The two satellite channels Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya have full time correspondents based in Ankara to follow closely all the news. So it is therefore not an exaggeration to refer to the ‘Turkish blueprint’, from which Arabs expect convincing answers to solve the huge problems regarding all of their countries: the national path to democracy; the separation of the military from politics; the rejection of violence as a means of forcefully establishing relations and defining the role of religion in the public sphere.The Turkish experience provides some answers to the following questions:

1) Is the ‘taming’ of the military a prerequisite for democracy? Yes. The fact that most Arab leaders are or were in the army is significant. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons for our shortfall regarding democracy, because without a parliament, which has been freely elected by the people, there is no democracy. The makings of the great democracies categorically exclude any political role of the military at all, and here Turkey has taken significant steps, especially after the election of Abdullah Gül as President of the Republic, after a tough wrestle with army generals.

2) Does violence work as a way of defeating totalitarian regimes? No. I remember a slogan written in huge letters in Algeria in 1992: “You have rejected the ballot boxes and the guns have spoken!” The Arab Islamic movement has a lot to learn from its Turkish colleagues. In the mid-nineties, the Islamic party Rafah led by former Prime Minister Erbakan was banned, but his militants did not resort to arms like in Algeria. It is clear that militarisation in political conflict mainly benefits militants and fundamentalists, and it is always the rest of civil society which pays the highest price.

3) Is the European Union a Christian club? Perhaps, yes. At least up until now the exclusion of Turkey (a modern Islamic country) from the extension of the EU presents a very serious issue: the desire to accept a country with religious differences does not exist. French President Nicolas Sarkozy claimed that Turkey was an Asian country! It does not make sense that the parameters which extend to include countries such as Romania and Bulgaria do not count for Turkey, which is also an important member of NATO. The promise to comply with the EU has speeded up the process of democracy, respect for human rights and above all, it has helped to keep the military, well known for its preference for coups, at bay.

4) Is the veil a religious symbol or an ideological flag? Perhaps both. The ‘battle of the veil’ in Turkey presents a serious problem for the secular State. Of course, every religion needs to have visibility in the public sphere, and every advanced democracy must guarantee religious rights to its citizens. However bringing religion into politics is always counterproductive, and with this in mind, I think that as the Turkish case teaches, using the veil as a tool in battle to weaken the supposed supporters of secularism, in other words the army, is damaging. At the same time however, secularism, which in turn tends to become a dogmatic religion, should not be trusted. The Turkish contest is still open because the winners or the losers are unknown; the huge changes in the country’s history are the result of the both cultural and political effervescence. Waiting at the finishing line, the Arabs continue to watch.

Amara Lakhous is an Algerian writer and anthropologist who has lived in Italy since 1995.

Translation by Helen Waghorn