On 5/4/07, Sabri Oncu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yoshie:
> It's interesting that the law that was meant to favor the
> military-backed party ended up being the opposite.
Not only that, such a strong Islamist movement in Turkey is also the monster
the Military created in the 1970s.
With a few variations the same pattern has been seen in a number of
other countries, too, from Egypt to Palestine to Indonesia. It's
clear that at one point they saw Islamists as the lesser evil to
secular nationalists or socialists. Where secular nationalists and
socialists have gotten already defeated or marginalized, the rulers of
the states have made efforts to incorporate more of Islamism (legally
or symbolically) into the workings of the state, from Algeria to Iraq
under the former Ba'ath government, even while continuing to repress
Islamist challengers to their hegemony. I understand this history,
but the present character of each Islamist party and movement has to
be analyzed case by case. It's certainly true that "whether the AKP
is 'mildly Islamist' or 'Islamic Democrat' is yet to be seen," for we
can never tell how any party or movement, be it secular or Islamist or
even socialist, will turn out; but we do know what the military stands
for.
All of the alternatives where neoliberal anyway.
<snip>
Neither of the sides in this battle can be defended or supported.
In Turkey,* I think that the best that leftists can do is to stay out
of the "rallies for the republic" and the like and explain how they
function, in case some people, unbeknownst to themselves, get
exploited by their organizers. I doubt that leftists are in a
position to present their own alternative.
* In countries like Turkey, Israel, Japan, South Korea, etc., which
have long been very much tied to US hegemony, as well as in the USA
itself, it's hard to grow any left at all.
--
Yoshie
