Today’s Zaman, Turkey
July 11 2008
Monopoly to interpret history and the CHP
by
ESER KARAKAÅ?*
Recent remarks by Justice and Development Party (AK Party) deputy and
deputy party leader Dengir Mir Mehmet Fırat noting that
Atatürk’s revolutions and the transformations in the 1920s and
1930s created a trauma for Turkish people set off a series of
discussions that still continue.
Naturally, Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal also
joined these discussions. In a TV program that I saw part of, Baykal
criticized Fırat’s views; actually he did more than criticize,
Baykal tried to generate a series of arguments to invalidate
Fırat’s views.
Writers from the Kemalist circles who criticized Fırat’s
remarks also adopted a similar line and sought to invalidate his
argument. I think that this ongoing discussion, just as is the case
with many others in our country, is being made on inaccurate grounds.
With regard to the 1915 Armenian question, Turkey seeks to take the
issue to the point of, "Let us leave this to the historians" after
tireless efforts. Some of the official figures who assert that the
issue should be left to historians and who are not historians by
training do not hesitate to announce their views on these issues right
after this clichéd remark, but we may have to welcome the
current point — that skepticism is becoming influential.
Extension of the same logic to cover the transformation process in the
’20s and ’30s, lack of a monopoly on making comments on this
historical era, abstention from correcting or invalidating different
interpretations — unless they include concrete documentary errors —
(serious historians note that even the archival documents cannot make
the final judgments) is my only hope for our past, present and future.
Fırat made a personal or a political comment on a historical
process in which he and his family were actively involved. I
understand that this comment makes some people furious. I find this
natural. But what I could not understand and find natural is the
attempt to invalidate this personal/political comment.
As I indicated in the title of my piece, nobody has the right to
assert that they have a monopoly on making the correct comment on a
historical event in a particular era in a particular country. Other
people have the right to interpret the same events differently; but it
is simply unacceptable if they argue that only their perspective and
approach is the correct one to explain this event or to accuse those
who dare to make different comments of treason.
I invite those who object to this right of subjectivity to see
"Rashamon," a cinema classic by Akira Kurosawa. The movie is from
1950, so it is fairly old. I do not see a great chance for it being
broadcast on our TVs again. But those who are curious may find it at
movie rental stores.
In the movie, a woman and her husband are kidnapped by a bandit. The
husband is killed and the bandit is apprehended. There are witnesses,
but the woman, the bandit and the witnesses all have four different
accounts in regards to the murder; all observations have some
accuracy, but they also conflict.
Whenever somebody asserts that they hold the monopoly on explaining
the truth about the events in a particular historical era, I recall
this movie by Kurosawa. If I had the opportunity and authority, I
would have made the movie part of curriculum in law departments and
other relevant social science departments.
Interpreting history a fundamental right
The right to comment on what happened in a particular era and in a
historical event by every citizen and those holding any political view
should be a fundamental right in liberal democracies. I would like to
underline that I find the violation of this fundamental democratic
right of every citizen by the chairman of a political party that calls
itself social democratic very grave for the present and future of this
party, which founded our country and the democratic understanding of
our country.
The CHP has the right to reject this different trauma comment, keep
those who prefer describing their past with these expressions away
from the party and keep the party doors closed to those who do not
agree with the Kemalist interpretation of history; there is nothing
that can be criticized in this. But when I saw Baykal on
Habertürk, I perceived that he saw this trauma comment and
other similar ones that remain outside of the Kemalist paradigm as
having no legality or legitimacy.
Naturally, if there is nothing wrong in this impression, an ordinary
"trauma" discussion may be taken to the most sensitive points of the
republic, Kemalism and the understanding of democracy.
The interpretation of Kemalism and the history of the republic based
on this ideology is only natural. The possession of this ideology by a
party, for instance the CHP, is even more normal and natural, but what
is not normal in liberal contemporary democracies is the imperative
and obligation that all political parties (see the Political Parties
Law) and all citizens have to understand, express and interpret their
common history in the same way.
Please let nobody say that Kemalism is not an ideology; this would be
an insult to Kemalism because ideology is defined as a set of
systematic ideas and thoughts that are consistent. Thus, by
definition, Kemalism is an ideology. Saying that Kemalism is not an
ideology is equivalent to saying that these views are devoid of a
systematic element.
Kemalism is an ideology that involves a certain systematic aspect, but
the legitimacy of this ideology in current times depends on its
openness to competitive politics. In other words, Kemalism will be the
ideology of the willing political parties like the CHP — and not the
ideology of the state. If the CHP comes to office, it will still
remain the ideology that dominates the executive branch and will not
be the ideology of the state. The CHP will give up on imposing
Kemalism as a systemic ideology to increase its legitimacy and seek
ways to make this ideology more contemporary and take the ideology to
power.
The trauma discussion is the exact reflection of this matter. Every
citizen and every political party has the right to interpret the
common past freely in liberal democracies. In particular, if for a
political figure this right is manifest in making nonsensical comments
— with the exception of insults — the cost for it should be
political.
Naturally, the framework I am trying to draw here is a meaningful one
in liberal democracies. And a countermove by the anti-liberal
democracy forces against this framework is only normal. But in today’s
world, they are losing their legitimacy with each passing day.
*Eser KarakaÅ? is a professor of economics and head of
BahçeÅ?ehir University’s European Union division.