Opinion That side of the bridge

Interestingly though,for more reasons that one,Turkey is in a position to bridge the “clash of civilisations” between the West and Islamic Asia,while also being in a position to present the Islamic world with a better role model for governance and prosperity than,say,theocratic Iran,authoritarian Saudi Arabia and Egypt and unstable Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Geographically,Turkey has,for more than a millennium,been the place where the mostly Christian West and Islamic East shared a border. Historically,the Ottoman empire,which preceded the formation of modern Turkey in the 1920s,also took on the role of the Islamic caliphate,leading the Islamic ummah for four centuries,from 1517 right up to 1923. Gandhi and the Indian nationalist movement were aware of the emotional importance of the Caliphate for Muslims all over the world — remember the Congress-backed Khilafat movement in the early 1920s in support of the defeated (in World War I) Ottoman sultans to mobilise support among Indian Muslims.

Of course,Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,the founder of modern Turkey,wanted to make a clear break from that past and converted Turkey into a staunchly and,some would say,fundamentalist secular state — even today,headscarves are not permitted at state functions. And so Turkey,over time,lost most of the influence the Ottoman caliphs had over the Islamic world. Ataturk’s reforms led to the rise of a sizeable,influential liberal elite with western values,particularly in urban centres like Istanbul,but much of Turkey retained its devout Islamic values and symbols including the headscarf. The secular political establishment backed by the army and the constitutional court made every effort possible to block the rise of Islamist parties to a sustained spell in power,until 2002,when the right wing Islamist party AKP,finally came to power with a solid majority,largely because of the awful economic record of the centre-left secular party.

There were many fears at the time,expressed by the liberal elite,that the AKP would dismantle Turkey’s secular state and turn it into a theocracy. And that it would abandon Turkey’s traditional pro-West foreign policy. But for most of the eight years that the AKP has been in power now,a period which has only seen an intensification of Islamic radicalism globally,Turkey hasn’t lurched away from the West towards Islamic extremism.

The AKP has been unexpectedly liberal. They have not tried to enforce their social conservatism on Turkey’s population. They have taken some other admirably liberal positions,abolishing the death penalty,seeking reconciliation with Turkey’s estranged Kurdish minority and even opposing the ban on YouTube imposed by the secular constitutional court. The AKP government has consistently been pro-US,pro-Europe and until the flotilla attack a fortnight ago had very good relations with Israel. Sure,there is criticism of the fact that the wives of the top leaders wear headscarves (something which would be quite acceptable in India’s more open secularism) but then the men always appear in “Western” suits and ties,and do not compulsorily sport beards.

So here is a government in a predominantly Muslim country of 72 million people which can seemingly reconcile,over a longish period,supposedly Western,and clearly liberal values like democracy,secularism and modern free market economic thinking with a devout following of Islam,the religion. When all of this is combined with a foreign policy that promotes friendly relations with the US,Europe,Israel on the one hand while reaching out to the Islamic world on the other,you have a powerful ideal that can bridge the Islamic East with the West. It is also a perfect role model for Muslim dominated countries in Asia and as any ally for the West,it is crucial.

Unfortunately,external factors haven’t dealt Turkey’s moderately Islamic government a good hand in recent times. Europe hasn’t quite reciprocated Turkey’s earnest attempts at membership of the 27-member EU club. And this is when the AKP government has been more deeply committed to the EU project than their predecessors. The AKP got the economy in order. They abolished the death penalty. They talked to the Kurds. But Europe has been reluctant to let Turkey a door in,a grave mistake that it is now pushing Turkey into the fold of allies of Russia,Iran,and Syria hardly role models of any kind.

And then Israel,on May 31,destroyed its relations with the one government that could have played an honest broker between Israel and the Arabs. Turkey had famously facilitated talks between Israel and Syria in 2008. Israel has also put at risk its traditional defence ties with Turkey and the continued presence of a number of Mossad stations in the country used for surveillance on the Turkey-Iran border in particular. Israel’s refusal to even acknowledge an error of judgment,let alone apologise,has simply enraged public opinion and allowed the hawks in the AKP to corner the secular Turkish army which has solid defence ties with Israel. Unfortunately,it also plays Turkey slowly but steadily into Iran’s sphere of influence.

The US has always recognised the importance of Turkey in the context of the Islamic world. But its allies,Europe and Israel,will have much to answer for if Turkey moves away from a moderate path to radicalism. The battle against Islamic radicalism is as much about ideas as tactics and strategy. A modern,democratic,pro-West Turkey,efficiently governed by a moderate Islamist government is a powerful idea. Turkey’s geography and history magnify the power of that idea. The West cannot afford to lose Turkey if they want to win the battle of transforming the troubled region that extends from Gaza to Pakistan.

The writer is senior editor,‘The Financial Express’

dhiraj.nayyar@expressindia.com