Of State and Religion

Most europeans think of people placing observance of religion above observance of law as a bad fact.

However when looking at the details what they mean is that they are disturbed at immigrants of various backgrounds expressing their beliefs which can potentially contradict Western Laws. Were a law of their own country to contradict with their religious faith, few european would abide by this law. However Western laws have been forged by judeo-christians with some history around the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Calvinist Church and the Jewish religion. Islam being a much more recent religion and recent immigration in Europe did not have the chance to participate in the process of law making across ages. For this reason, the common imaginary is clearly opposing muslims which have their law: Sharia to western (historical) residents which have their own law. There is no denial that western law is the basis of international organizations whether they relate to economy, to trade, to peace, to human rights or to relief. In the end, the universal reach of these laws have been more and more challenged by radical muslims and most notably during the famous case of the danish caricatures.

But limiting the debate to this superficial facts does not allow a clear understanding. Sharia is not a uniformly stated and applied law, we can even consider that there are as many Sharia laws as there are power to exercise it. So law like in Europe has variations that may fit or not a particular group and that is not different in this aspect. Assertiveness of the most radical versions of texts by the authority of some countries or some communities tends to hide how strong the relations between the religious law and the western law is. There is little doubt that the most developed legal systems of early historical times (Greek, Achaemenid, Roman, ..) influenced the establishment of islamic law. Some of these ideas will later travel back to Europe as part of the Enlightenment and also as part of colonial rule of large European Empires. The legal system is thus not far apart from "western" practice except in one aspect which is the divide between State apparatus and Church/Religion. In most countries with a muslim majority, the structure of government is rigid or archaic and not opened to a re-foundation of the authorities.

The problem is not, as people think spread to all muslims, but the very problem (the one of strategic concern to Western Powers) is that of State supervision of religion. On one side, Europe has grown across time an institutional relationship with various churches or representatives of their religion, outlawed some sects and defined the area in which religious intervention is accepted. On the other side, muslim countries do not have such uses and can be erratic in their approach of other religions (or of variations of the main branch of Islam of the country). Most muslim countries established during the 20th century through a democratic process have been able to establish some kind of separation and do not pretend to rule according to God's law. The "ruler" is not the voice of God but merely observant of the practices of people of the country (and so of their beliefs).

Observance of religion should thus be definitely separated of observance of the religious law from a migrant's home country. And this is the tendency that can be observed in all muslim populations in Europe and in non-Arabic countries. While the problems of some countries are not migrating with their population, the people still become more and more aware of such problems. The only way to solve such issues is to drive by example. This is where the relation between Turkey (the most secularist of the region) and Iran (the most theocratic of the region) has the potential to shift minds should their political interests become aligned.

Colonial army ?

The Turkish army has been paradoxically the most respected institution in Turkey while it has been at the heart of most of its problems.

At the establishment of Turkey (1923), the army was staffed with a foreign-oriented elite speaking fluently English or French. These officers were seeking to belong to European circles and were accompanying the reforms of Ataturk (sometimes called 'westernization') with enthusiasm. They often became at different level part of the administration. This is how their role of protector of state (by opposition to protector of the people) started to be entrenched in the minds and souls. This has been further relayed by foreign powers (at the beginning England and France and after 1945 the United States). With the rise of Russia, the army grew in an alignment with NATO that soon became a simple subordinate of Western Powers. Secret services were infiltrated and global aim was to keep the country as a reliable asset at any cost. Most countries were cooperating and discussing with Turkey mostly through army channels.
The objectives of the army and the objectives of the Turkish people have thus been very often divergent. This explains why military coups and instability of the youth have prevailed mostly when international tensions were high.
Since the fall of USSR and the end of Cold War, the opportunity to redesign the role of the army have constantly raised and with reforms driven by AKP, the core of the issue is about to appear. No country can afford an army that is more obedient to NATO influence than to members of its own executive. Army has also been one of the most conservative force and as any army is not preoccupied firstly by human-rights or rule-of-law issues which had became a signature of Turkey for decades. Only integration of Turkey in Europe has helped limiting this drive thanks to interests of European Powers to limit the influence of America in Turkey.
Now Turkey has a vivid economy (dynamic, with a lot of competition) and can only restore the place it should have kept by reinforcing the very foundations of the Republic : keeping Anatolia's fate under the direction of all the Turks.

Identity of Turkey

The troubles with Turkey in facing the world is lying in its own identity. In the end no one really understands what is Turkey.

While Turkish history is in part starting in the steppes close to the Ural Mountains for a part, another story starts with the first settlements in Anatolia.

On one side, if Modern Turks are descendant of Nomadic Turkish Tribes that converted to Islam en route to Europe and finally conquered and freed Asia Minor from the influence of its western religion, we can expect this historic clash of forces to continue and Turkey to be an independent country with its alliances varying with its own objectives (usually to finance their "westward conquests" [economic markets nowadays]). There should also exist a prevalence of the religious aspect in the society and the rejection of minority rights.

On the other side, if Modern Turks are descendant of all the populations that inhabited Anatolia (or Roman Asia Minor), they form a mosaic of people that conflicted between themselves before emerging as large empires. The people that founded such grounds are: Hattis, Hittites, Hurrians, Assyrians, Lydians, Lyceans,Greeks, Romans. They finally formed the Byzantine Empire and later on the Ottoman Empire totalling an historically unrivalled one and a half millenium of sovereign rule over large territories. The fall of the Ottoman Empire has triggered the creation of Modern Turkey. From these times should remain the cultural crossroads of such empires and the embracing of progress. In the end this history should help creating an open society of knowledge where should exist a prevalence of the individual that contributes to the richness of the country.

Too much highlight has been made in recent times of Turkey on the first historic approach leading to a Top-down control of the society. If Turkey wants to join the European Union and participate in the modern world, the focus must definitely go towards the latest historic defintion of Turkey.
Turkish people, as the last to settle in Anatolia, are the last ingredient that compose this land. To move back in its history tracks, people of Turkey should realize the full extent of their history to build a better future.

Turkish historical roots

So now the entangled Turkey I have described in my last post is set to fight back the economical crisis. The economic leverage Turkey is looking at is lying as much in politics as in macroeconomics.

Turkey is a country born lonely in the cold of the battlefields. Its ennemies ranged from the western colonial powers to its more immediate neighborhood enraged with the frustration of some missed opportunities (territorial or political gains) and occupied with the necessities of nation-building ("we are not like them"). Many organizations, secret services, political or religious circles thus across time achieved to undermine the return of Turkey to its past strength (cf. GDP per capita numbers in the nearby graph). The idea of an obligated friendship has also long triggered the relations with NATO.

This amounted to various strategy and tactics which nurtured instability in the country (with the best example being kurdish and armenian terrorism) but also across the region. This has been done mostly by encouraging arms race with Greece, keeping hot spots in Cyprus or in Nagorno-Karabakh, setting up Israel as the policing authority of the Near-East.

These achieved holding back the political and economical development of Turkey. Now what has been brought back in order is that where the development of economy was limited by many of these factors, the ranking has changed for first initiating the development of politics and regional power before economy. Papers and news stories may be concerned Turkey is no more a western ally but this lies much in the comfort of the past relation. Turkey is reasserting stronger than ever that its political agenda will no more be set by external motives.

The risk lies in getting off-limit and over-reaching one's capacity. After the local elections, the time of internal diversions on the values of the society will probably pass to address the serious matters lying in the backgound. First comes the restarting of the relations with the EU then the relations with Armenia.

Timing on EU subjects can profit from the friendly presidencies of Sweden and Spain starting from this summer to start closing some chapters and opening new ones. Reform is more necessary than ever to ensure the capitals needed to soften the economic crisis. Armenia is another urgent subject since it is the last track for solving the genocide claims, the US are about to recognize. Having the US setting up the historian committee in charge of studying the facts and bringing its conclusions to the UN would be the best chance for all parties to agree.

And in the end, since this is the year of the conflict/aborted conflict with Iran, the foreign shuttle services will run vividly with however little control over the results. The important here being the ability to jump in a possible vacuum left behind a retracting iranian diplomacy (for adressing the internal stability of Iran).

Turkey: where are you headed ?

While there are more and more troubles that Turkey imposes to itself, the lack of progress in major matters is everyday more obvious.

No possibility to alter constitution because constitutional court doubts on the ruling party's intentions, no possibility to get closer to Europe because of one French politician, no move on Cyprus before the Greeks act, no closing of any chapter on the EU negotiations, no proposal to Armenia while creative ideas are welcomed, .. That is a long list making think that Turkey can sometimes acts like a dog trying to catch its own tail. Who are these people trying to save Turkey by whirling around the same single ideas they got for 50 years or more. Isn't threatening Turkey with bullets in the feet, a non-solution for any kind of problem? Will there be anything left to save at the end?
Turkey will in the end redefine itself as more than its 20th century antagonisms. Turkey needs to find its balance and it is time for all politicians and administrations to think that they belong to the same country. If discussions in Turkey circle around foreign rules being imposed then maybe it is high time to construct a Turkey setting the standards. For now Turkey is blocking itself from moving in any direction. Possibilities of compromises have to arise for Turkey to set new objectives and continue to enhance itself.

Turkey in the forefront for taming Russia

Can Turkey once again act as the brake to the expansion of russian sphere of influence? There is no easy answer to this but we can see that the hotspots of active diplomacy more and more threatens turkish renewed interests in its own historical sphere of influence. Promises of better relations with Russia surface in many countries all around Turkey and it is necessary to act before Russia gets a too strong hand. It is very meaningfull that all the areas under trouble and mostly many frozen conflicts are linked or even maintained by Russia. Is Russia troublesome only to people wanting to avoid a multipolar world? No. Russia pretends to the old place that USSR once occupied and is ready to use all means for this.

It is significant that Turkey started to act to remove some energy keys from the hands of Russia by realizing the BTC, contracts with Iran and other projects aimed to reach the status of "energy hub". This is however temporary relief and does not mean the battles are over. We should see Turkey prove it can bring more than dangers to the regions of Caucasus and Central Asia. For this, a strong cultural activity would be the best way to relay the increase in economic interests known by the parties. Such an activity could also gets the interest of EU and it is possible to imagine cooperation between EU and Turkey to strenghten this traditional area of influence of Turkey. This is the time when it is possible to cool down the fireplaces and bring Russia closer to cooperation with the "West". Putin may be weaker that it has been and while his targets remain high, his realizations lack any more idea than reenforcing the status quo (or bringing back a form of USSR).

Turkey moves in too many directions

As Turkey integrates in its geopolitical surroundings with a strong hand, it seems to forget its strategy.
Positive developments on the Kurdish issue, on cooperation with Israel, Syria, Iran or Georgia should not make Turkey bet on making a pause in its accession process. It is exactly the right time to take bold measure to catch up with the pace of reforms that once amazed the EU commission. There is still some areas of improvement to build an opened, democratic and liberal Turkey. The judiciary, the military, the transportation and the job market are all keys to the development of Turkey to a closer integration with EU. The road is setup but the driver shouldn't hesitate in taking it. As we know, Turkey aims to become a bridge between civilizations, religions, economies and a facilitator in many subjects. To do this, a regional focus would kill the chicken in the egg. No! Turkey needs to reach a global scale and when times are harsh with EU, it should both

• prove it is a reliable and trusted partner for the EU, surpassing expectations and estimates
• reach to the group of countries that Turkey is starting to be part of (the famous BRIC Brazil/Russia/India/China)

In fact, Turkey shares many things, in its structure, culture, ambitions and could share much with countries like India. Turkey should achieve better results in the sectors of finance and information technology and strengthen its already strong industrial and construction sector by favoring SMEs, startups and R&D thus allowing more niche players (high added-value). The fact that countries with big potentials have little interest in products coming from Turkey can be a concern as the current trade deficits show.

With all these card in their hand there is no reason Turkey couldn't transcend its consolidated regional power. It is however still necessary to make strong choices to deliver on this potential.