Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Fascinating Turkey

• Mark Mardell
• 25 Jul 07, 12:22 PM

Thank you all for your comments. Yes, Dr Okcay, I am learning all the time and I do find Turkey one of the most fascinating and enjoyable places on my beat. Turkish food... well I'll post a holiday blog on food in a couple of weeks and have more to say then. "Yum," will do for now.

This is my third trip, for work, to Turkey and I do hope I understand more, not only with every visit but with every conversation. This blog is part of that. I hope you all get something out of it, but I most certainly do. I have read every single comment and nearly every one helps me understand a point of view.

Although, a general reminder: I can and will answer specific points but not windy abuse. That's why I can't do as Betula Nelson requests - I can't find a single substantial point to respond to.

There have been many posts complaining that I, or the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, use "Islamist" or "Islamic" to describe the AKP. I think the "Don't stick labels on us" plea is understandable but we need labels to talk meaningfully about politics and history. And remember my job is to write mainly for an audience in Britain, who may not have a clue what the parties are and what they stand for.

I know some colleagues do use "Islamist" and they regard it as accurate. For myself, I feel "Islamic" simply describes a religion, while "Islamist" means political Islam with a radical agenda, and is usually pejorative in the West. I would describe the AKP as having "Islamist roots", but otherwise wouldn't use the word in connection with them. It's clear others do think they are Islamist, but I think that is part of the argument, open to debate. I have sympathy with the "Muslim Democrat" point made by Ronald Kramer and it may be that over time we end up with something like that if the AKP's behaviour supports this interpretation. I have drawn parallels with Christian Democrats here and in broadcasts. But "Muslim Democrat" does come down on one side of the debate, as the AKP's opponents keep saying the party will get off the democratic tram when it reaches its destination, using an old quote from Erdogan. Many say we should simply drop the religious label. I think this is a polemical point, not objective.

It is not possible for a couple of reasons. Firstly, for the general British audience, one of the interesting things about this story is that a party with religiously devout leaders is governing Turkey. Secondly it's at the centre of the argument in Turkey itself. Read Kerem Erikin, who says the AKP's mentors are the Taleban. Those who support this point of view wouldn't say that the party leaders' religion is unimportant.

Secondly the army... I think I do have a better understanding of the view that the army is a balancing force. But it is valid to question whether it is compatable with democracy.

Lit makes a good point. For journalistic shorthand one has to write "The army thinks" just as I'd write "The Labour Party believes" while knowing that within both institutions there is a range of views and complex relations between differing power structures. Trouble is, with an institution like the Turkish army it's impossible for an outsider to gain much insight.

It's one of the challenges of modern journalism to scrutinise closed organisations with as much care as open, democratic ones, whether they are big corporations, insurgent movements or powerful armies, but it's obviously not easy. Thank you all again.

I hope you like the pictures, which were taken by our cameraman Tom Vantorre.

• Permalink
• Comments