The politics and values of the White Kurds

In politics, expecting people, let alone opposition elements, to be consistent is mostly an expectation that comes to nothing. One reason is that it is again an oppositional mind that undertakes to decide in which situation the opponents would count as more consistent, which is already a very difficult situation from the outset. It is naturally very hard for those in conflict with one another to decide in which case the other would have behaved more consistently. The behavior of opponents that is judged more consistent can generally be appreciated, perhaps, only when the opponent gives up his own claims and surrenders to yours. That is why, among opponents, those who criticize their own comrades the most, and fall into the most conflict with them, appear to you closer, more reasonable, more likable, though what emerges here is in fact not consistency but something else.

On the other hand, people may not always feel obliged to remain faithful to the principles they declared from the beginning, especially when a new relationship with their opponents is at stake. They generally have no difficulty making this "suspension" look pleasant to themselves. Suspending a principle is tolerated where principled behavior would serve the opponent, but then what is left of politics is not lofty aims but only the enmity, rancor and hatred between "us" and "them."

The article titled "The White Resistance of the White Turks," published yesterday in the Star newspaper's Açık Görüş supplement by Prof. Dr. Elisabeth Özdalga, draws attention to a distinction the famous sociologist Max Weber made in his essay "Politics as a Vocation." Being caught between the "ethic of ultimate ends" and the "ethic of responsibility" has become a real tragedy of Turkey's White Turks, especially of those who pass themselves off as leftist intellectuals. But the tragedy has gone much further: Turkey's whites, transcending this dilemma as well, have tended toward feeling no obligation of commitment either to the ethic of responsibility or to the ethic of values. "Persons who deal with affairs of state, that is, with politics, need to have certain principles; but at the same time they must also take into account the responsibilities for the actions that are possible within the conditions of practical political circumstances and for the consequences these will bring. The white pens of the White Turks, however, unfortunately flee both from principles and from the responsibility that falls to them. Instead, they have largely been swept up by feelings arising from the us-them (us-others) distinction."

These views of Özdalga about the White Turks show that politics on this side has been caught in the vise that works worst from the standpoint of human benefit. Politics of course inevitably requires the distinction between "us" and "them"; this distinction constitutes the most natural dynamic of politics, but it is by no means necessary to be captive to this distinction. It is not at all impossible even to make this distinction on the basis of values and labor and to maintain a consistent line along this path.

Such is the state of the White Turks. The state of the White Kurds, unfortunately, presents a far more pitiable sight. In the latest book of the esteemed Professor of Sociology at Uludağ University, Hüsamettin Arslan, which has been in my hands for quite some time (Young Turks, Young Kurds and Conservatives, Paradigma Publications), the stance of the White Kurds, whom he calls "Young Kurds," on the axis of politics and values gave its most striking examples in the performance of the BDP deputies in the TBMM during the constitutional amendment deliberations.

None of the excuses the BDP deputies put forward to flee from politics gives the slightest sense of loyalty in them either to the ethic of responsibility or to the ethic of lofty values. They refrained from lending support even to a legal provision that would have made the closure of their own party more difficult, simply because the package bore the AK Parti's stamp. In this way they brushed aside, with the back of their hand, a real chance to contribute to the development of democracy. Yet such opportunities do not come to a person at all times. It was an opportunity for an easy gain; they missed it by getting stuck in friend-enemy reckoning instead of doing the difficult thing. But in choosing the AK Parti as the enemy, they took their place in the ranks of the White Turks in the capacity of White Kurds.

At this point there is no sense in taking seriously the touchiness they display over the AK Parti's not having addressed them during the process. As Etyen Mahçupyan, quite rightly and listing very reasonable grounds, asked: "Why should the AK Parti trust you?"

First of all, had there been any article in the package containing the more specific demands of the BTP members, the package's chances would have been greatly diminished both in the TBMM and in the referendum process. There is no way the BTP members could be unaware that demanding that their own unattainable demands be included in this package would mean finishing the package off politically altogether. (If they are unaware, the situation is gravely different, of course.) That they insist on it though they know this already shows an intention to sabotage the package, and it is quite clear that no serious negotiation can be conducted within this problem of trust. Then, naturally, the picture that has emerged needs to be reassessed from scratch.