A Turkey Classic: Grotesque Co-Existence of Make-Believe Liberalism and Fascism
asbarez
Friday, August 27th, 2010
BY AYSE GUNAYSU
The Turkish state recently made a simultaneously liberal and fascistic
move on the same subject: the `Armenian issue.’ The result was a
perfect example of what makes Turkey the setting of the grotesque
co-existence of liberalism and a fascistic mindset. First came the
decision by the Turkish Ministry of Justice confirming that the
recognition of the Armenian Genocide should not constitute an offense
in Turkey. Then the Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared Hrant Dink a
provocateur and a user of hate speech in the article that led to his
sentencing and, ultimately, to his assassination. The Turkish
establishment thereby confirmed that it endorses the court ruling that
found Dink guilty, and that he deserved – at least, knowingly headed
to – his death.
Now let’s take a closer look at these two incidents.
Arat Dink and Sarkis Seropyan were sentenced to prison for Hrant
Dink’s words – `of course I say that this is a genocide’ – in an interview
with Reuters, which was republished in the June 21, 2006 issue of the
weekly Agos newspaper. Upon Hrant Dink’s assassination, the case
against him was dropped but that against Arat Dink (the managing
editor of Agos, and the son of Hrant Dink) and Sarkis Seropyan (the
publisher of Agos) continued. On Oct. 11, 2007, the Sisli Criminal
Court sentenced the defendants to one-year imprisonment. The reasoning
that accompanied the court ruling read: `The court has concluded that
Arat Dink and Sarkis Seropyan published news that claimed the Turkish
nation was guilty of genocide and therefore they are given punishment
in consideration of their personalities and the characteristics of
their actions’ (emphasis mine). The penalty was postponed because the
two had no criminal record.
The court ruling was based on Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal
Code, which penalizes `insulting the Turkish People, Republic of
Turkey and Governmental Institutions and Bodies.’ The two appealed the
decision. Upon an amendment to the law in May 2008, investigation and
prosecution under Article 301 were made subject to the permission of
the Ministry of Justice.
On July 23, 2010, the newspapers wrote that the Ministry of Justice
had refused to give permission for the prosecution, stating that
`freedom of expression shall be applied not only to favorable news and
thoughts that are harmless or considered irrelevant, but also to
comments and ideas that disturb the state or part of the society. This
is a requirement of democratic order and pluralism and the basis of
the right to criticize. As criticism is not necessarily an expression
of praise, it can be harsh, hurtful or injurious. Therefore, the
statements in this case remain within the boundaries of `criticism.”
Traditionally, one wouldn’t expect this from the Turkish state. But
the ruling AK Party likes liberal rhetoric and underlining principles
of pluralism and democracy, although in practice it has contradicted
this discourse in many instances.
However, what was interesting about this story was the minimal press
coverage it received, both in the news and commentary pieces. The
ministry’s decision did not trigger a heated debate in the media. But
now that the threat of prosecution no longer prevails, the ball is in
the court of the Turkish public and intellectuals when it comes to the
issue of referring to the extermination of the Ottoman Armenians and
Assyrians in 1915-16. Now we will see where the real pressure comes
from: the government/state apparatus, or the racist/nationalist spirit
deeply rooted in the Turkish society. When I say racist/nationalist
spirit, I don’t only mean the ultra-nationalists or the strong
Kemalist current (the children of the victorious `anti-imperialist’
republic), but also the followers of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis who
constitute the backbone – and the founding spirit – of the AKP movement.
Then, on Aug. 16, the newspapers reported on the Turkish Foreign
Ministry’s `defense’ – submitted to the European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR) – for the case brought by the Dink family. The ECHR had combined
the case brought by Hrant Dink against the Turkish court ruling that
found him guilty of `denigrating Turkishness’ under Article 301 of
Turkish Penal Code, with the action brought by the Dink family against
the Turkish government for not taking the necessary measures to
prevent Hrant Dink’s assassination. In the course of the legal case,
the ECHR had asked the Turkish government’s defense in connection with
the Dink family’s assertions.
The defense prepared by the lawyers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
was shocking, utterly scandalous, and insolent. `Dink insulted
Turkishness. He used hate speech. Such articles provoke people and
constitute a delictum publicum,’ it claimed. Furthermore, the defense
drew a parallel between Dink and a neo-Nazi leader Michael Kuhnen.
`The ECHR has found orderly a previous ruling in Germany against a
Nazi organization member who defended National Socialism in his
article. In a democratic society, similar articles (like the one Hrant
wrote) are for instigating people and harming public security and
order. There is a decision of recommendation by the European Council
of Ministers on `prevention of hatred remarks.’ The government is in
the opinion that sufficient and critical justifications are made
against interruption of Dink’s freedom. In the Dink case, there was
urgent social need for criminal procedure.’
During the first few days following this news about the defense, many
awaited the possible response from the public, going through the pages
of newspapers looking for comments on the issue. On Aug. 18, at the
end of his column in the daily Taraf, Etyen Mahcupyan wrote: `Many
readers ask why I didn’t write anything on Turkey’s defense to the
ECHR. Perhaps my answer to that question should be made known: If I
were a Turk, if I were affiliated to the same identity with those who
killed Hrant, I would refuse to share this shame and would write on
the subject. But I am not [a Turk] and this responsibility lies with
`you’ not me.’
The next day, the initiative called `Hrant’s Friends’ released a
statement condemning the defense. `The defense presented by the
Republic of Turkey at the ECHR is unacceptable. Being the victims,
witnesses, and watchdogs of the Hrant Dink assassination case and as
the citizens of this country, we request the immediate withdrawal of
the defense conveyed to the ECHR, and demand the launching of an
urgent investigation on those who had prepared and approved it. We
demand the government and all state institutions included in this
defense to make a statement, and that the state of the Republic of
Turkey and its government immediately, and without any delay,
apologize to the Dink family as well as all those that are watchdogs
of this case,’ read the statement.
Writers such as Yildirim Turker in the daily Radikal, Orhan Kemal
Cengiz in Zaman, and several others attacked the government, bitterly
condemning what the Foreign Ministry had done.
In the meantime, the Turkish government was in a state of panic.
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said he `felt burdened’ and obliged
to defend freedom of expression. `I cannot accept that as an
intellectual or as a minister,’ Davutoglu told a group of journalists
accompanying him on his visit to Kahramanmaras. However, he said, the
defense could not be withdrawn, `but the state could settle with the
victim’s family.’
In turn, President Abdullah Gul, answering journalists’ questions on
his way to Azerbaijan, accepted the state’s responsibility in Hrant
Dink’s death. `Hrant Dink was killed because the necessary measures
were not taken,’ he said.
Dink family’s response came soon. As regards the minister’s reference
to a possible settlement with the Dink family, Hosrof Dink, the
brother of Hrant Dink, said that there could be no settlement as long
as Article 301 continues to exist. `The article’s abolishment is a
struggle of honor, since my brother was condemned because of it,’
said. `Hrant wanted to go to the European Court to show the injustice
of the sentence he received and to explain that he was not an enemy of
Turkey. It was the last thing he did before he was murdered. As long
as Article 301 is used to sentence people, it would be as though my
brother is still lying on the sidewalk that he was shot on.’ Recalling
Gul’s comment that the state had its share of neglect in the
assassination, Dink said, `We expect the president to mobilize the
State Supervisory Board, which directly reports to him.’
Then the news agencies reported on Gul’s invitation to Hosrof Dink for
a meeting at the presidential office. After the meeting, Hosrof Dink,
declining the journalists’ requests for a statement, only said: `We
discussed private issues. We shared pain and grief.’
On the other hand, the daily Taraf, in an effort to mitigate the fury
against the government, wrote that the Foreign Ministry deeply
regretted the wording of the defense. According to Taraf, an anonymous
spokesperson from the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, `The
loss of Hrant Dink, editor-in-chief of Agos weekly, led to a profound
sorrow in our country. The Turkish justice has been investigating all
aspects of the killing with determination.’ He underlined that there
were some baseless and distorted accusations in several newspapers in
the last two days about the defense. `It is totally inappropriate to
claim that the Turkish government tried to find extenuating
circumstances for the accused and used expressions in its defense
keeping Dink responsible for his killing.’ He honored Dink as `one of
the most precious intellectuals raised in Turkey,’ adding, `It is
impossible to even think about justification of such a heinous
assassination. Any implication that the Turkish government was trying
to justify the murder is totally unacceptable.’ The defense, he said,
was drawn up `on the basis of mere legal and technical elements… It is
both wrongful and unfair to come to some political consequences about
the killing of Dink on the basis of the defense. The loss of Dink led
to a profound sorrow in our country and the government condemned the
killing in the harshest way possible. It is our only solace that the
suspect was detained and brought to justice shortly after the killing.
The Turkish justice has been investigating all aspects of the killing
with determination.’
It was these efforts of circumventing criticisms that Arat Dink, the
son of Hrant Dink, rebuffed and fiercely dismissed, in an article
titled `The state has remained true itself,’ which he sent to Taraf.
He begins the article by saying that `the similarity between the state
and the killers is not limited to the similarity displayed in the
defense. The similarity [manifested in the defense] is not the reason
but the result of the similarity between the two [the state and the
killers]. Moreover, the relation between these two is not one of mere
similarity, but one of being identical.’
He went on to sarcastically rebuff the excuses that the AKP government
lacks the real power, that it is unable to control the actual state
apparatus, and that it is helpless in the face of the `deep state.’
This is a time when, on the eve of the referendum on the proposed
amendments to the Constitution, many leftists are reluctantly
supporting the AKP’s campaign in favor of the amendments, in the hope
that such moves will open the way to democratization. Therefore this
debate is very critical for the government’s prospective victory in
the referendum. Hence, the government is doing its best to broaden the
base of the left-wing, half-hearted supporters of the AKP’s so-called
`democratization steps,’ with Prime Minister Erdogan frequently
referring to the atrocities of the military rule in the 1980’s,
mourning those who suffered, and reading poems written by victims of
the fascist regime with eyes filled with tears, swearing that the
amendments are for democracy, pluralism, and human rights, and that
they are the only remedy for Turkey’s problems.
Arat Dink’s `open letter’ refused to buy the government’s excuses for
failing to control the operations of the `real’ or `deep’ state. His
last words in the letter – which are more like a cry of `I can’t take
this anymore’ – will be my last words, too:
`Words are all we have. But they have set their eyes on our words as
well. We are asked not to name the state `the killer.’ All right then,
[how about calling it a] serial killer?’ (Daily Taraf, Aug. 20, 2010)
From: A. Papazian