Most of the figures coming from those segments have been visibly influential and vocal ever since the AK Party came to power.

- 18 / 08 / 2008 07:06

Yavuz Baydar

As the Ergenekon terror network and its amazing subplots unfold on a daily basis, there is a developing debate within the left, spanning from whether it is legitimate to lend support to the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) to questioning what is seen as a "hidden intent" behind the whole case.

The ongoing debate also has links to the attitudes articulated and stands taken during the closure case crisis, which targeted the AK Party. Since that crisis seems only to have been postponed, the debate within the left, stemming from its own existential confusion, does not display signs of fading.

Given the elementary fabric of what is largely and loosely defined as the "left," it is natural that there will be no easy crystallization of analysis of where the social and political progress is heading in Turkey. The primary reason for this has been due to the fact that parties such as the Republican People's Party (CHP,) the Democratic Left Party (DSP) and even the Social Democratic People's Party (SHP) are mere illusions of a democratic left comparable to parties in Europe or certain Latin American countries. Lacking vision in all major issues -- such as globalization, the role of the state in the economy, ethnic and religious diversity, secularism, etc. -- they have only contributed to Turkey's nauseating political process.

However, what constitutes the real left -- which even contains elements within these so-called leftist formations of the CHP, etc. -- is more multi-layered than one imagines. The CHP and the DSP have parked themselves in a cul-de-sac of defending outdated republican values and defying democratic change. Meanwhile, an intensive debate is taking place within an active and divided left.

Most of the figures coming from those segments have been visibly influential and vocal ever since the AK Party came to power. Having suffered severely in the past three to four decades by way of all kinds of oppression, these well-educated individuals never cease to pay attention to the domestic and international scene. Nevertheless, the emergence of the unusual coalition under the AK Party has caused division, which has reached its peak over the Ergenekon case.

In a nutshell, the fault line has been drawn between a large group of intellectuals, defined as "liberal leftists," and followers of the "third path."

An interview in the daily Milliyet with Ertuğrul Kürkçü summarizes a critical viewpoint. A key figure in Turkey's tough '68 movement, Kürkçü is also the sole survivor of a military operation, a former urban guerilla and now a well-respected intellectual and human rights activist.

Kürkçü, in contrast to many representatives of the "third path," should be taken seriously; his argument is strong. He claims that "the AK Party's mission is to consolidate the domination of capital with Islamic values" and sees therein a contradiction with the existing global trend of "limitations of capital domination." He rightly provides the example of the May 1 demonstrations as proof of the "anti-democratic nature" of the AK Party. He admits also that the passivity of the "third path" -- articulated as "let the elephants kick about, we will watch" -- has been a gaffe.

He also criticizes the AK Party for not dealing with the military command more rigorously. "The AK Party should have dismissed Büyükanıt in 2004 for his critical remarks on Cyprus," he said. He added, "The army is there, unchanged, as the AK Party is there as well." He accuses the "liberal left" of negligence before what he sees as the reactionary Islamism of the AK Party.

But then Kürkçü loses his train of thought. He claims that "the corpse of Ergenekon has been thrown to the AK Party" -- meaning that the AK Party has been "given" a mission. He says this possibly because he misjudges the fine line between political strategy and what is "politically possible." Kürkçü also displays a lack of understanding of the "suppressed nature" of the AK Party and avoids explaining why the AK Party actually was a target for closure.

But in his words the heart of the matter is there: Opponents and dissidents attacked the AK Party, he says, because of a lack of alternative.

This is exactly the source of the confusion within the left -- a disability to correctly calculate its strength, a complete lack of a positive outlook on the role of "democratic alliances" and a blindness to the role of religion as a potential catalyst for a democratic, pluralist and peaceful coexistence.

The real blind spot for Kürkçü and the "third path" is that the failure or collapse of the AK Party in democratizing Turkey will not be helpful for a rational left as an alternative.