Turkey and the Arab Spring: sharing experience

In the revolutionary process that began in Egypt on January 25, the stage of the parliamentary elections has been reached. Barring a major setback, the election, which will begin on November 28, will take about a month and a half to conclude, because the election can only be completed in three stages. The only apparent reason for the election taking so long is that there are not enough judges to serve at the ballot boxes. For that reason the country has been divided into three electoral regions, and about two weeks after the results of one region are received, the elections of another region will be moved on to.

Even holding an election is quite an important matter, and its successful completion will in fact show in which direction the revolutionary process in Egypt will proceed. In certain streets the candidates' posters and banners create the look of a colorful carnival. Egyptians, who will experience an election of this kind for the first time, are practically relishing it. Since the revolution, extremely lively debates have been going on about democratic experiences.

Egyptians are looking for a path and a model for themselves, but this search is by no means the search of some empty people who know absolutely nothing. A very rich intellectual accumulation and a high-level, lively atmosphere of debate, which confirm our long-held opinion about the intellectual environment in Egypt, immediately catch the eye. Since January 25 alone, countless meetings, forums and debates have been held on the nature and future of the revolutionary process and on political models suitable for Egypt, and a considerable literature has emerged. The studies published by the Al-Ahram Center for Research alone on this subject are enough in volume to take up an important place in a library. This is a very important fact that those with an eagerness to "market a model" to Egypt should never ignore.

Last week in Egypt the Strategic Thought Institute organized two separate meetings, one with the newspaper Al-Youm Al-Sabi' and the other with the Al-Ahram Center for Strategic Studies. In the opening speech of the first of the meetings, titled "Democratization and Constitutional Changes in Turkey and Egypt: Comparisons and Lessons," Mustafa El-Fiki, editor-in-chief of Al-Youm Al-Sabi', stated that Turkey's democratic experience is very important, that there are very important lessons Egyptians can draw from it, but that it cannot be transferred to Egypt as it is. El-Fiki, who said that it could be very good for Turkey to seek a form of secularism better suited to itself, also explained that Egypt could not agree with any definition or practice of secularism. He reminded us that historically, even those who occupied Egypt, from Alexander to Napoleon, were obliged to legitimize and ground their political presence in Egypt in religious terms.

From the emphases of other speakers as well, it is understood that the message on secularism that Prime Minister Erdoğan expressed on his trip to Egypt started an important debate. In these debates, while it is stated very clearly that Erdoğan's message on secularism was generally not approved of, those who, despite everything, preserve their sympathy for Erdoğan say that the real addressee of this message is not Egyptians but Turkish and European secularism because of their Islamophobic practices. At the conference, at which Birol Akgün, Cenap Çakmak, Zeynep Dağı and Ahmet Uysal also spoke on behalf of Turkey, it was agreed with the Egyptian participants that experience sharing is very important.

At the meeting held on the second day at the Al-Ahram Center for Research, similar views were expressed especially on the subject of secularism, but it was emphasized that the Turkish experience has gained importance and been motivating for Egyptians, especially in the last 10 years. At the meeting, where Samir Salha, Ahmet Uysal and Birol Akgün and I each gave a presentation, the Egyptians Jamal Abdul Jawad Sultan, Ziya Rashwan and El-Sayyid Yassin took part. At the meeting, to which the press and the academic world showed special interest, the common dynamics between Egypt and Turkey, elites, ideology, culture, and the roles of external factors in the democratic change of both countries were put on the table. The roles of political culture, the ulema, religion and the state in the democratization process, and the state of Muslim-Christian relations, were also addressed.

Since we have run out of space I cannot go into details, but a few questions directed at us by the Egyptian listeners may serve to describe the atmosphere.

What is the real aim behind this interest of Turkey in Arab countries?

What kind of competition is Turkey in with other European countries?

While Turkey tries to propose a model to us, how far has it solved its own internal problems?

The developments Turkey has covered in the last ten years appear to be closely related, in part, to the AK Parti's coming to power alone and the formation of stability in government. In the face of the possibility of the AK Parti moving away from power as a result of future elections, what is the likelihood that the same policies toward Arab-Islamic countries could be sustained?

External relations such as the EU constituted a compelling advantage in Turkey's democratization, whereas there is no external relation compelling Egypt. Egypt's international engagements push it not toward democratization but rather to remain a country that is manipulated. How, in your view, can this problem be overcome?

We tried to answer, together with the other participants, those of these questions that we could, but especially to the first question, that is, concerning Turkey's interest in Egypt or other Arab countries, we can say that we agreed on an answer to the effect that if this interest did not exist, one should ask why it does not. For this interest of Turkey is an expression of its reconciling and integrating with its own history and its own geography. By showing this interest, Turkey finds itself. Just as, as they open up to this interest, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya find themselves too...

The integration of the peoples of the Middle East, by removing the visas among them and even, if possible, the borders, will bring a gain to all of them at once and in every respect. We can all now see very clearly how great the losses have been caused by the time spent as countries closed in on themselves.

In sum, we can say that, rather than marketing a Turkish model, an experience sharing provides invaluable benefits to both sides.