The events of the last 15 days in Taksim Square have dominated the headlines of every media outlet in the western world and beyond. What has happened in Turkey goes beyond the actual protest over the uprooting of trees. The crisis bites deeper than the reason used as a motivator for going out into the squares in the main cities of Turkey and staging such protests. The resilience of the protest warrants attention and its lessons will hopefully lead to long overdue changes which may reshape Turkish democracy.
The first issue which merits observation is the right of the Turkish people to protest and voice their concerns. The right of freedom to assemble and to protest is a civil and political right. There is no doubt that it enshrines the right to voice disagreement with decisions and policies of the day. The protesters have a right to protest and furthermore, they had a right to police protection to protest and not the opposite – the fear of retribution for their protest. The powers-that-be have no right to resort to violence to silence these voices of opposition.
The right to civil protest is undeniable. However, an abuse of this right is not acceptable. The infiltration within civil protests of violent groups for their own ulterior motives harms not only the protest but potentially also leads to unacceptable over-reactions, as we witnessed earlier this week. Minority groups should realise that they must not offer themselves as platforms for others to stand upon and promulgate their own agendas. The minorities lose their voice and scope for protest in such circumstances, as they are overshadowed by the violent groups and it is violence that makes the main news.
The civil protest in Turkey is an example of how a protest can spiral out of control within hours. I question whether the success of the Arab Spring uprising had some influence on the way people took to and joined the protests. This notwithstanding, countries should always provide space for the most contradictory voices to be heard and these should not need to resort to violence to get their media coverage and message across. A healthy democracy should provide the space for one and all and the lack of such space and facility is tantamount to a partial failure of the democratic structure within that country.
The question therefore arises as to whether or not the protests and the demands that were promulgated as a result of these protests were for the enhancement or enforcement of rights and democracy, or whether they were for different demands, fuelled by a number of social realities that have undermined the government and frustrated a number of social groups within Turkish society.
What really prompted these protests? Could it truly have been dissatisfaction with the proposed change of use of a square, or were there other interests behind it? Turkey has a large number of unemployed – more than five-and-a-half million. The country has also been hit, like all European countries, with the global economic crisis. Is this the factor which led to violence mingling within the protest?
Whatever the reasons, these activists have managed to get protests going against the ruling AKP government in more than 60 towns and cities. Millions have taken to the streets and, notwithstanding its efforts to minimise the scale of the protests and to interfere with them and their coordination, the government has failed miserably.
The reaction of the government is totally unacceptable and has brought condemnation from both within Turkey and beyond. It was brutal and anti-democratic. It was characterised by the use of excessive force, the use of riot police to assault crowds with gas, water and rubber bullets. Does this not remind us of our past? It should also remind us of how easily a country can lose its hard-earned democracy.
The reaction of the Turkish authorities strengthened fears among EU members about Turkey’s democratic credentials, its respect for fundamental rights and its application for membership of the Union. This has clearly been put back by years – if it has not totally disappeared.
The reaction from other countries, influential international organisations and the international media was very hard-hitting for Turkey – so hard-hitting, in fact, that the reaction of the Turkish Government indicated the panic with which the country was handling the reportage of what was happening internally. To say that Turkey’s reaction was not very positive would be to minimise its responsibility beyond comprehension.
The very fact that Turkey has not accepted criticism from beyond its borders does not augur well. Its reaction to the strongly worded resolution issued by the European Parliament did more harm than good. In defending its reaction, apart from apologies that were forthcoming from a few political quarters within Turkey, the claims that the media and the west were biased against it in their actions is difficult to believe or understand. The parallel drawn by the Turkish government with the protests in Greece or the recent G8 protests in Britain – which, according to them, went unreported or, even more, uncondemned – did little to paper over the cracks which have widened further in Turkey’s relations with members of the EU.
The truth and lessons that have arisen from the protests in Turkey should not fall on deaf Turkish ears. There is a reality which, although voiced by a minority, needs to be listened to and, if necessary, attended to. Europe can never accept that its fundamental principles should be shelved simply because one of its governments had the heat turned on. The manner in which Turkey dealt with the civil unrest is just not on.
The right of citizens to protest, the obligation of the police to enforce that right and the right of citizens to live freely and without fear of violence in their communities are some of the underlying principles of our western democracies.
If Turkey cannot live up to these basic considerations, it should look elsewhere, beyond the European shores.