Prof. Arato's impressive CV

The recourse to the Hungarian-born American Andrew Arato by those who can find no basis within the logic of democracy against the constitutional amendment initiative recalls a typical psychological warfare tactic. In the interview he gave to Devrim Sevimay in the Milliyet newspaper, Arato, who could not put together a single decent sentence about democracy, about the Constitution, or about Turkey, is left with only one persuasive argument for why we should credit what he says: that the man is an American, and the title expressed as that of a famous "expert on constitutional amendments."

The content of what he says is like a camel's hump: if it had some decent side it might perhaps be criticized, but it has no decent side. It is clear that he was made to say a great deal on consensus, the headscarf, the constitutional amendment and all the contested articles on the agenda. But I will not dwell on this part of the matter. Many people have already addressed it as much as needed.

What I especially want to draw attention to is the recourse, in order to lend credit to what Arato says, to the man's biography, his level of expertise, or the works he has published, rather than to the content of what he says. This is, after all, the psychological-tactical dimension of the matter. When the discourse is weak, it is thought that supporting it with a strong CV will be an effective way. Those who defend what Arato says are in fact devoting all their energy not so much to what he says as to showing how competent he is in his field.

Prof. Arato's CV is truly impressive. He has managed to make his name known in critical theory, and in some circles has even been mentioned together with Jürgen Habermas, the greatest living German thinker. Through the books and articles he has written on civil society and political theory, he has made a considerable reputation in his field. As all this is cited, it has evidently been thought that it will add more credibility to what Arato said in the Milliyet interview. Yet that he can commit such grave errors despite so strong a CV can do nothing but make one think that he did not deserve this CV and, unfortunately, damage still further one's faith in the world of academia.

Or does one really need such a CV in order to bring Abdullah Gül into the matter, starting from the debates on the agenda, and to be able to speak of his becoming a Sultan? Is it necessary to go through such a long CV detour in order to reach the opinion that "Consensus did not mean merely a parliamentary majority; nor is consensus achieved simply by agreeing with the MHP; one must also see the CHP for consensus"? Go and see Baykal, Onur Öymen or any CHP party member, and they will say the same things in a much more decent manner anyway.

And some people expect us to believe that someone with such a CV will not say anything wrong. Just as they expected us to believe in the Ergenekon case that such respectable people would never commit a crime... Just as they expected us to believe that a commander to whom an army has been entrusted carries a natural innocence... An interesting discourse of innocence, from whichever side one looks at it, shows itself here too. The wish that certain people be exempt from error, from question and from interrogation constitutes one of the most important prayers that keep the status quo standing. It would be well if it remained a prayer, but it is a bigoted creed that can easily turn into an inquisitorial will at the first place where it gains power and opportunity.

I do not know whether it will do any good, but it is worth recalling this universal knowledge about human beings. History is full of countless examples of many people who were granted knowledge and who made their knowledge trail after certain political, social, ideological or economic interests.

As the Greek proverb says, "God confounds his clever servants with simple things." Ideological obsessions that are not visible under normal conditions have tripped up many a great philosopher, many a scientist, many a politician who seemed wise, when they found their setting. If you like, read the story of Martin Heidegger, one of the greatest philosophers of our age, with the Nazis, Emmanuel Levinas's view of the Palestinians vis-à-vis Israel, and Jürgen Habermas's preferential silence in the face of Israeli oppression, through this lens too. You need not stop by Turkey at all; you would in any case find it harder to find counterexamples here.

In fact, however great philosophers may be, there are historical moments in which they are truly tested. How they come out of those moments is far more important. Even having taken very consistent stances on certain matters in one's past is no guarantee that one will keep the same consistency to the end of one's life. Life goes on, and a person is tested with something different at every moment.

That is why the place where a person says "I'm done, I'm cooked" is perhaps the place where he loses. As long as life goes on, it is worthwhile for a person to keep the eye and ear of his heart open to new possibilities of being tested.