Abstract
The article examines the resources and the shortcomings of pluralism in today’s Turkey in light of the spring 2013 Gezi protests in İstanbul’s Taksim district. The protests have had ecological and civic as well as political implications and were a turning point in the country’s political life.
On 20 April 2014 young people from İstanbul decided to organize a barter of books and other stuff in the famous Gezi Park, an open and public space by definition. ‘Allowed’ in the beginning by the police, heavily present in and around the park since the protests of May/June 2013 (three additional police stations have been installed since), the peaceful activity has been abruptly interrupted by the same police despite smooth progress of the event. The reason given was plain: ‘It is about the security of the park itself’! A conundrum for an outsider, the police’s stance on that very place has become a routine for dwellers around Taksim Square where the park is located. Indeed at the slightest ‘unusual’ occurrence, the first reaction of the police is to shut the access to the Gezi Park. Thus it is about the banning of the public space to the public for public reasons as well as the closing of an open space which otherwise is physically impossible to seal!
The Turkish police’s attitude reminds me what I witnessed in Tabriz, way back during the final months of the last Pahlavi in 1978, where assemblies of more than 5 persons in the streets were forbidden. Such state of mind is a direct consequence of Gezi protests which were full of lessons in terms of pluralism but also its denial in today’s Turkey. I would examine them in 5 clusters.
Pluralism versus governmental control of public space
Gezi was a citizen’s initiative, the ‘Taksim Platform’ which was launched on 14 June 2011, two years before the events, discreetly combating the decision of the prime minister to confiscate the park, build yet another shopping mall and therefore privatize a public space. Indeed the authorities attempted not only to confiscate a public space but through privatization (a private company was apparently already chosen to undergo the construction works) through marketization (as the building was supposed to be a luxurious shopping mall) and through cultural alienation (by reconstructing a military barrack of early 19th-century style which was already a pale replica of eastern European baroque architecture on an already confiscated Armenian cemetery) they tried to completely empty its public characteristic. So much so that today the city has two huge ‘official’ meeting spots, one on the Asian side at Maltepe (1 million sq m2) and the other on the European side at Yenikapı (half a million sq m2), two metastases which have been artificially created by filling the sea with the earth coming from building excavations. Naturally, no one goes there to demonstrate and the spots have become parking places with a sea view!
Quite isolated in the beginning, the Taksim Platform initiative ended up by laying the foundations of a larger movement called the Taksim Solidarity. (Today these two words ‘platform’ and ‘solidarity’ are forbidden by a recent decision of the Interior Ministry authorities in charge of civil society associations.)
Between 28 May and 15 June 2013 Gezi protests allowed a pluralist public expression by duly revalorizing public characteristics of citizenship and by creating a small ‘commune’ where exchange of goods was free, with no money circulating.
The government had and still has difficulty in understanding and even less ability to appreciate the new forms of citizenship and protests directly deriving from social empowerment in which the ‘administered’ citizen of today knows at least as much as his or her ‘administrator’.
The best case in point is the environmentalist concerns which were the new medium of empowerment as long as city dwellers were, after all, trying to keep one last piece of green grass in a mega-city covered with concrete and asphalt, to refuse the mass consumption spree imposed on them by the government as illustrated by the shopping mall project, to claim their rights to be consulted before any decision is taken.
A bright illustration, inter alia, of citizen’s disapproval which was prevailing in Gezi was the performance of installation artist Erdem Gündüz who stayed immobile on the Taksim Square following the brutal evacuation of the public space by the police forces on 15 June 2013. Standing by, the artist’s performance has superbly contrasted with the ruling party’s developmentalist motto: ‘No halt, let’s continue the road forward.’
Pluralism versus majoritarianism
The protest movement was politically leaderless and colorless. It had no representative in the Parliament either and therefore lacked the slightest legitimacy in the eyes of the authorities. For them and in particular for the prime minister who decides about anything and everything, the protesters could have been no more than hooligans [çapulcu]. We should know that in Turkey today, meaningful and resourceful political opposition is outside the Parliament but it is still embryonic and it is faced by an unfair electoral threshold of 10% to make it to the Parliament. But had the protesters have representatives in the elected body, that would be no different. The protest embodied in Gezi and which characterizes pluralism per se, was labeled as the enemy, declared right away non-national and yet illegitimate.
Indeed the government has developed throughout elections that were brightly won since 2002, a sense of democracy that excludes pluralism. The motto is ‘We have the majority; we have free hands to exercise the power that is conferred on us by the national will.’ A typical ‘eastern democracy’ type of motto, the best application of which we have seen in Mahathir Mohamad’s Malaysia in the 1980s and 1990s. The East’s election-winning, unchecked, unaudited, unrestricted, opposition-hating, non-pluralistic and majoritarian democracy has natural limits. Two options appear: either the total abolition of democracy and return to core values via authoritarian/totalitarian regimes – which is not a distant option given the common held belief in the East that democracy is an aberration devised by the West – or the qualitative jump to the pluralist, liberal western democracy. Turkey today is at this juncture.
Pluralism versus control of political space
The protesters have been objecting to a variety of political patterns that the government and in particular the prime minister have developed since 2010. Personification of power, hyper-centralism, de facto and de jure abolition of all existing checks and balances, preference to bestow on his own [bahsh] rather than through a due interaction between the government and the society, social engineering giving rise to social passivism in return for mass consumption, plunder of urban, cultural and natural assets for the sake of an unchecked economic growth, growing moralism and authoritarianism…Paradoxically, however, the protesters were the main beneficiaries of the previous reformist period between 2002 and 2006, skilfully steered by the same government that opened up the political space. Their reaction was against a sort of political restoration by those who were the very actors of pluralist reforms implemented from 2002 to 2006. Within this framework the ruling party and the ruling elite are both an asset and a liability to pluralism in Turkey.
As for the protesters, their pluralist motto as well as their pluralist dynamic prevented every attempt politically to manipulate, control and lead the protests in a country where there are too many controllers and leaders.
At the end, the ruling elite has failed in its attempts to control and engineer the political space and its pluralistic character. But as a result of its failure, it increased its often illegitimate law enforcement measures and became every day more intolerant to plural voices.
Pluralism versus monolithic and homogeneous nation
The Gezi protests have demonstrated the vitality of the change process the Turkish society is undergoing since the last hand-over to civilian elected politicians of the political power by the putschists, in 1983. Gezi’s magmatic mass was quite representative of this empowered Turkish society. It was urban, young, heteroclite, cosmopolitan, spontaneous, playful, looking apolitical but nevertheless highly politicized, individualistic but empathetic, defiant and defensive at the same time. Actually it was and still is a significant laboratory or sample of the circumstances in which the nation actually is.
Indeed the founding fathers’ monolithic nation, inscribed on a concrete wall, has broken apart since the empowerment of Muslims and Kurds. The courtyard, the agora, is full of mosaic pieces, in other words of identities recently rediscovered and reaffirmed. The dominant, hegemonic identity among them is the Sunni Muslim identity which is the main force for the control of public and political space through its majoritarian mandate. This identity is in power. The biggest challenge today is how to redefine a pluralist social contract so as to include all the mosaic pieces by marbling them [ebru] without the supremacy of any of them.
Pluralist resources, a best practice
One of the remarkable concrete outcomes of the Gezi protests was the development of a societal consciousness regarding the affairs of the city. In a hypercentralized country like Turkey, that is far from being easy. In a way that is why the protests have erupted, in the absence of an agreed platform of consultation and dialogue between the citizen and the authority. The initiator of the Gezi protests, the Taksim Platform, has turned itself in a holistic group called ‘İstanbul Belongs to All of Us’ [İstanbul Hepimizin] and actively prepared an electoral manifesto in view of the March 2014 local elections. We should recall that local elections in Turkey may be very misleading as their ‘localness’ is very dubious. The elected official is appointed by his or her party and is actually nothing other than a vassal depending on the central administration. This is why local elections are never about local or regional life but rather to get an idea on how the electorate views the ruling party, and thus get a sense of what the upcoming general elections might look like. Despite this well-established trend the need for local empowerment, as seen and felt with the Gezi protests, has been at the very core of the initiative by the above-mentioned group of citizens. The manifesto is called ‘Chart for İstanbul’ and is amply representative of the state of art regarding the ongoing combat for local governance.
Chart for İstanbul
We, the signatories of this chart, want to assume our civic responsibility and participate in decisions concerning the development, administration and future of İstanbul. We take our city to heart and we demand that those who aspire to administer İstanbul do so as well. We unanimously vow to ensure that local candidates, from all political parties, work in accordance with the following basic principles.
A new inclusive approach to governing: Recognition that participating in the administration of our city is every individual’s right and responsibility. Commitment by local officials to enabling these rights, regardless of citizens’ beliefs, identities, political views or parties, by creating the necessary participatory vehicles. Local governance of every street, every neighborhood and every county, instead of by a central authority. City administration at all levels is committed to ensuring integrity, transparency and accountability. Establishment of the necessary constitutional and legal amendments to provide local authorities, first and foremost, with access to financial resources, to empower them and to enable them to work efficiently. Determination of the city budget on all levels with the active participation of the citizens of İstanbul.
As İstanbul changes, we need to redefine citizen rights: The right to housing, health, education, transportation, culture and access to the city’s resources is a fundamental human right. Local authorities’ primary responsibility is to ensure that everyone who lives in İstanbul has access to these resources in the most convenient manner and at minimum cost. Local authorities minimize risks and hazards to residents by preparing comprehensive emergency preparedness action plans for all types of foreseeable disasters and execute them accordingly. Urban transformation projects reflect a new commitment to citizen rights. They are executed after considering all social, cultural and local fabric, without divesting citizens’ property, with a view to protecting their rights, ensuring participation of dwellers and without displacing anyone. Local authorities provide for the timely, safe and secure transportation of all children, seniors, pedestrians, cyclers and disabled citizens to their desired destination. Local authorities recognize that women have a fundamental right to freely participate in the public sphere without discrimination. Officials have an obligation to plan and implement a wide range of measures and incentives that promote broad participation by women, enabling them to engage in social, cultural, public life and to work in a just and equal manner. Local authorities develop programmes with the central government and civic organizations that enable all children to live in a healthy and safe environment, to protect and support their rights without any discrimination. Local authorities ensure the right of all citizens to freely express their identities, beliefs and culture and to counter all forms of discrimination and violence. Local authorities ensure the development of city culture in the respect of creativity and plurality. Local authorities encourage İstanbul residents and non-profit organizations to propose public projects. Local authorities reserve a portion of the municipal budget to support training, development and presentation of all forms of artistic activity. All animals that we share our city with have the right to live a healthy and decent life in sheltered conditions. The protection of this right is among the fundamental responsibilities of local authorities.
Revive our ties with the past:
İstanbul is a world heritage city. With its rich natural resources, cultural and historic assets, it belongs not only to the citizens of İstanbul but to all humanity. İstanbul’s cultural and natural heritage will be protected in accordance with internationally recognized best practices. Authorities have the obligation to protect historical sites in a democratic, informed, pluralist manner that respects all cultures. The planning of renovation projects in historical heritage sites should take into consideration the site’s historic integrity, the socio-economic impact of those living in the area, as well as their fundamental rights: first and foremost, their right not to be displaced.
Envision a future together: Local authorities protect the seas, forests, water basins, agricultural areas and all living beings that are vital to İstanbul’s present and future. They do not disrupt İstanbul’s natural geography. They reject projects that jeopardize the well-being of İstanbul. Parks, ports, coasts, squares, green areas and military zones, as well as all public property that we as the citizens of İstanbul use or may use in the future, cannot be privatized or opened to construction. They should be protected and reserved for recreational, cultural, artistic and sports activities by the city’s inhabitants. Local authorities acknowledge the value of human capital and invest in the development of labor, knowledge and skills in all ways. City plans are developed through the broadest participation possible, in a pluralist, innovative and holistic manner, striking a balance between environmental concerns and people’s needs. Innovative solutions are reached by working collaboratively. City planning employs a methodology where the processes are mutually supportive, from the developing of information to conceptualization and implementation, with continually updated follow-up and assessments. Transparency and accountability are essential in follow-ups and for monitoring plans. The impact of decisions on İstanbul is taken into consideration by conducting ‘impact assessment’ studies and the conclusions are shared with the residents. Local authorities place the principle of ecological sustainability at the centre of all their plans, projects and implementations. They prepare and implement the necessary infrastructure for environmentally sound development and consumption practices, recycling and renewable energies.
We, the citizens of İstanbul, as the signatories of this chart declare that we shall do our utmost to uphold the concept and methodology of city administration fostered by this chart at all times in our neighborhoods, in our counties and in the city as a whole, to strive to have this approach adopted by politicians who run for office in local elections and to monitor the work carried out by the elected officers in accordance with this new approach to governing.
Footnotes
A version of this article was presented at the Reset-Dialogues İstanbul Seminars 2014 (“The Sources of Pluralism – Metaphysics, Epistemology, Law and Politics”) that took place at İstanbul Bilgi University from May 15–20, 2014.