From Periphery to Center

Yet the people were not that dumb. They at least knew well enough to vote for political leaders who will defend their values and rights against the authoritarian establishment. That's why after Turkey's transition to democracy in 1946, the political landscape has been defined to a great extent by the elected representatives of the people, and the self-appointing power holders of the bureaucracy. The latter included, of course, the all-powerful military, which has staged three coups; made two interventions; executed a prime minister, two ministers and dozens of activists; imprisoned hundreds of parliamentarians; and tortured many thousands of political figures.

Over the years, a sort of middle way was found, especially with the Constitution of 1982, which is still in implementation. The solution was that political power would be shared between the people and the establishment. The people had the right to choose the government, but top positions in the bureaucracy had to remain in the hands of the establishment. The most important of the latter was the presidency, which was, with its extensive powers, a post tailored for Gen. Kenan Evren, the leader of the military coup of 1980. (In Turkey, we have a lovely tradition: If an officer leads a successful coup, then he becomes the president for the next seven years. If the coup fails, then he gets executed – something which Colonel Aydemir, who attempted two unsuccessful takeovers in early ‘60s fatefully found out.)

In other words, for the authoritarian establishment, the president needs to be someone from “them.” He needs to represent and serve the state, not the people. For example he should be someone like Mr. Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who had been adored by all top bureaucrats and generals, and who repeatedly emphasized the state's rights to constrain civil liberties, and especially religious freedom.

This explains the passionate reactions that Mr. Abdullah Gül has faced since the first day of his presidential bid. As the son of a religious family from the conservative town of Kayseri, and the husband of a wife who wears the headscarf, he symbolized the “periphery” of Turkey, not its “center,” to use terms devised by Turkish sociologist Şerif Mardin. Moreover, he has a past in “political Islam.” Actually all of these were not a big problem when he served as prime minister (briefly in 2002) and foreign minister. After all these were the posts that the people's representatives could attain. But the presidency, ah, that was reserved for the representatives of the establishment. Hence came the harsh “secularism warning” by the Turkish military on the night of Apr. 27, which blocked the way for Mr. Gül's presidency. The establishment had given its verdict: This man would not be the president.

Yet the people had their say, too. On Jul. 22, 47 percent of them voted for Mr. Gül's party, granting him and his best ally, Prime Minister Erdoğan, an astounding political victory. Moreover, other political parties, most notably the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which garnered 14 percent of the votes, made it clear that they don't have a big problem with Mr. Gül. The only party, which was obsessed with him was the CHP – the proud representative of the establishment.

A ‘'Human Centered' Governance

What this means is that today Mr. Gül is in Çankaya, the presidential office, simply thanks to the democratic power of the Turkish electorate. It is not a military coup, or a bargain with the military and other bureaucratic institutions that put him there. The only authority that he owes anything to is the people.

This signals not an “end to secularism” as some politically paranoid Turks still believe, but a bolstering of our democracy. Mr. Gül will not dilute the founding principles of the Turkish Republic, he will only help making them more liberal and humane. It was quite meaningful that in his inaugural address to Parliament he emphasized “a human centered” approach to governance. “The state,” he said, “exists for the happiness, dignity, prosperity and security of human beings.” This is quite different from the political philosophies which argue that the state exists for some abstract principle (and “-ism” of any sort) and the people exist for the state – an approach which is not too hard to hear from the ideologues of our establishment.

In other words, and in the great scheme of things, Mr. Gül's presidency declares the demise of the authoritarian political system which runs “for the people, in spite of the people.” Under his leadership Turkey will further embrace what Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest presidents ever, once defined as the ideal form of governance: A republic of the people, for the people, by the people.