Friday, March 11, 2011
[Updated, June, 9, 2011]
Kamil Pasha seems to be updating her go-to moniker for Turkey from "the country of no" to "the Republic of fear."
Doesn't someone already own the rights to that name?
Somewhere in hell, Saddam Hussein is contacting his lawyer
Anyway, the irony here is that the "fear" reference was made with respect to the Ergenekon trial—the very trial whose proceedings were for years presented in a generally uncritical light on Kamil Pasha's blog.
It's a different tune from the early months and years of the trial, when the site criticized those who poked holes in the trial's narrative while regularly strengthening the narrative itself through repeated references to Ergenekon's supposed status as "a clandestine gang" of robbers and thieves hell-bent on sowing the seeds of chaos in Tayyip Erdogan's land of plenty. It was a discourse and characterization of events that was, to a large extent, straight out of the front pages of Today's Zaman and other AKP-friendly English-language news sites.
But now we know better. People have grown suspicious, finally, about a trial that was originally designed to weed out crimes committed by state authorities against Turkish citizens, but which was suddenly transformed—around the time state prosecutors tried to close the AKP—into an investigation into crimes allegedly committed by Turkish citizens against the ruling party.
So now Ergenekon is bad, and Turkey is "the republic of fear." Okay, whatever.
But while it's good to see KP change course on Ergenekon, I have to admit that it kind of bugs me when Turkey, or any other country for that matter, is described in categorical terms like this. Turkey isn't the republic of anything (other than the Republic of Turkey, I guess)—it has no monopoly over fear. Nor does Turkey, aka "the country of no," play any unique role in the world when it comes to saying "no" to the legitimate demands of its citizens.
In my mind, Turkey is neither the "country of no" nor the "Republic of fear." Instead,
I think Turkey, like other countries, is a country with many good and bad sides,
including cruelty, fear, injustice, etc., in ways similar to what we have in the United States and elsewhere.
It's not necessary, I think, to characterize a country in terms of just one of these qualities, or
vice-versa. Even if it's good to recognize that there actually is something worth fearing in an investigation like Ergenekon.
____
|
I personally don't mind those characterizations. People who live here resort to far worse exaggerations (though not in print or on the 'net under their own names).
Jenny seems to hold garden variety propagandists (or people who just do low quality work) in high esteem and allows her blogging to be influenced by them. If there's a problem at all, it'd be that. I don't know how much of what she excerpts she finds credible anyway. I'd hope it is much less than what she catches flak for.
Have you noticed how pretty much all references to getting rid of the deep state disappeared from what Zaman and Taraf (as far as I can see, I'm not paying those people) are pushing now? What's advertised -- even by the people who speak against the recent heavy-handed action on the grounds that the main focus is lost -- about the army's and some 'elite's non-democratic influence.
People on the 'net did start fearing things though. The Ergenekon prosecutor apparently said he was watching Twitter for Ergenekon activity causing at least one person I know to shut up and protect her tweets. People even worried about my hanging out in Pinar Dogan and Dani Rodrik's blog. A few heavily publicized raids/arrests and a sustained campaign in the press outlining how just writing things can be a terrorist activity seems to be enough to scare many people.
I did click and check out the Kamilpasha entry from 2008 that you linked to. You were suspicious about the goings on back then and for good reason. Check out thecomments there. It does seem that Zaman never covered the declaration by the intellectuals -- which is probably why it is the paper to read to see what will be done and what won't. (And no, not for the deep words of wisdom from the 'respected' cemaat people and the third rate sycophants masquerading as independent intellectuals.)
Reply to this