2013 Protests in Turkey - Gezi - Essay Example

? PROTESTS IN TURKEY Inserts His/Her Inserts Inserts Introduction On 28th May, 2013, widespread protest broke in Turkey in response to the brutal eviction of a sit-in at the Taksim Gezi Park1. The sit-in was to protest the development plan that the government had planned for the park. After this initial protest, supporting strikes and protests were instituted in various places across Turkey objecting a wide array of issues. The main issues that could be discerned included freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of the press, and the violation on secularism. The Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek, on supporting the protests, noted that when considering that Turkey has always been considered a moderate Islamic state, the protest were indeed astonishing. He argues that the protests are proof that a free market does not always lead to social freedom but can exist with authoritarian politics. Basically, Zizek points out that the existence of a free market does not always mean that a democratic state exists. A country can employ a free market system but withhold sharing of power between the ruling few and the majority public. In considering the protests in Turkey, it can thus be concluded that neo-liberalism in the country led to the decline of the government’s responsibility to its people and thus leading to a very angry citizenship that reacted in the best way that they could. Democracy is an integrated political system that is based on the principle of involvement. Democracy is based on two concepts; liberty and self-government2. Liberty often referred to as freedom belongs to individuals while popular sovereignty belongs to the public as a whole. Liberty encompasses what governments are prohibited to do to their citizens, that is, curtail individual freedoms. Self-government as a property of democracy on the other hand deals in the manner with which those who govern are chosen. In this way, self-government deals with who leads while liberty sets rules that impose limits on what those who govern can do. In the past thirty years, democracy has enjoyed an extraordinary rise. Incorporating social welfare with liberty and sovereignty has led democracy to be widely popular. It has however can be noticed that most governments are unable to maintain democracy as in the case of Turkey. Markets and Democracy Free markets nurture democracy in four main ways3. It is in these four ways that the government of Turkey failed and which led to the unrest that was witnessed in a country that was considered a promising example of change in the Islamic world. The first manner in which free markets promote democracy is free markets are founded on the principle of private property. In a free market society, governments have to uphold the right of every citizen to own property as well as protect public property. According to4, one of the main reasons that the protest spread across Turkey was that the citizens were protesting the sale of public spaces, streams, forests, urban symbols and beaches to private companies and individual investors. The plans to demolish Gezi Park to erect a shopping mall were a tipping point of the anger the citizens harbored on the privatization efforts the government was conducting. The second manner in which free markets promote democracy is that they generate wealth5. As a country acquires wealth through the free market system, the middle class also referred to as the social backbone of democracy, arise. In turkey, the government grew complacent and forgot about the needs of the middle class in favor of the rich and elite. The people grew frustrated when their government increasingly went out of its way to create conducive environments for big companies while slowly decreasing public spending on social welfare. The third manner in which free markets foster democracy is by creating a civil society6. This occurs where groups and organizations such as religious associations, labor unions and professional associations, are separated from the government. The civil society is set up to act as a buffer between the government and the individual. It curtails the power wielded by the government and offers social space for action independent from the government. Without a civil society, democracy cannot exist, and a civil society cannot exist without a free market economy7. The free market economy in Turkey helped the development of civil societies. However, the government has been slowly turning to authoritarian type of leadership8. Since 2008, the AKP government has arrested former military commanders on charges of planning a coup, journalist, members of parliament and trade union leaders on charges of being involved in a coup plot. The biggest infringement on civil societies that led to the protest was infringement on the rights of the media by the government as well as opposing the action of trade unions in the country. The people in turkey were worried on the power wielded by the government and one person was quoted remarking that Erdogan wants to reverse the society of Turkey into authoritarianism since he has removed any opposition and most of the channels that people can use to question him9. The final way in which free markets foster democracy is that it creates two main habits vital for democratic politics: trust and compromise10. Citizens in a free market democracy have to trust that their government will not infringe their rights. The minorities in this government will also have to trust the majority not to persecute or harm them in any way. The Turkish government went against this important tenet of free market when it sought to restrict the right of the people to express themselves without the fear of reprisals. The propagation of police violence as well as curtailing the freedom of assembly was also a major reason for the spreading of the protests in the country. Erdogan also introduced various laws geared at restricting the secular movement that was growing in the country. The proposal to restrict the sale of alcohol was an infringement of the free market system as well as a break of trust between the government and the people. Erdogan also planned to build a mosque in Taksim thus sparking fears in secularist about potential changes towards religious-nationalist authoritarianism11. Apart from trust, another issue is compromise. Democracies are generally political systems that incorporate peaceful compromise rather than coercion or violence to settle the differences inherent in any society12. During the beginning of the unrest, the government reacted with violence on any sign of protests. The police handled protesters roughly and were not concerned with the health of those they are supposed to protect. The use of tear gas and water canisters was wide spread and a lot of people were injured in the period of unrest. Erdogan did not seek ways to compromise with the protesters and in fact attributed the protest as actions of hooligans and dissidents13. This was against the tenets of a free market democracy and thus in turn led to more protests as people felt the government was acting unfairly. Sharing Wealth, Not Power Not long ago, Turkey was considered as a model for the Muslim world due to its fast economic growth as well as the changes in its political system.14 However, from mid-2007, the country came into the spotlight for different reasons mainly the increasing authoritarianism of the ruling AKP party as well as its ties with the Sunni Islamic movements. At the end of 2012, Turkey was considered by most of the Western world as the “worst jailer” as it had imprisoned more journalist that both Iran and China15. To achieve its ambitious economic goals, the government of Turkey embarked on wealth sharing with its citizenship but not political power. The country was classified as an emerging market economy by the IMF in 2011 and currently is ranked that the country with the 17th largest nominal GDP in the world16. While the country has been enjoying economic growth for the past few years, the political freedom of the people has been steadily declining under the ravaging neoliberal economy instituted by the current regime as well as the religious-nationalistic authoritarian government that Erdogan seems intent on putting into place. Tiwana describes neo-liberalism as the modern political philosophy that favors minimal government intervention, free trade, privatization, and a reduction of public expenditure on social services17. When the AKP party came into power in 2002, it was praised for its efforts in improving the lives of the Turkish community. However, it became evident that the party had an Islamic agenda through its attempts to undermine the secularist influence in the country18. Through neo-liberalism, the current government has largely ignored its middle class in favor of the rich elite and in the process privatized important amenities across turkey. Over the past two years, the party has also amplified restrictions on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, television and internet use in the country. It has also used coercion tactics to cower media groups as well as trade unions in the country19. Apart from this, AKP has cultivated a powerful coalition of businessmen and media outlets working to meet the political order being built by Erdogan. Through this coalition, Erdogan has been able to control the economy to an extent that social freedoms of most of the public can be easily amended as need be. Through education reforms that seek to strengthen Islamic teachings and the development of laws banning alcohol, the ruling party is able to control the public and curb secularism20. While all this measures were instituted, the ruling party at no time developed laws that openly influenced free trade and as such, the rest of the world understood Turkey as a free market economy on its way to becoming fully democratic. Turkey is a prime example on how free and fair elections do not always yield a free market economy as well as how free markets do not necessarily mean a democratic government21. By oppressing various civil societies as well as the freedom of the press, the Turkish government was able to promote its own agenda over the good of the people. Over time, the people become resentful leading to the protests that were seen on May 2013. Conclusion In the past three decades, democracy has been steadily rising in the world. Hand in hand with democracy is the concept of the free market. Modern successful economies are mainly free market economies and a strong relationship between democracies and free market economies exists. When we consider the modern world, the top economies in the world have dynamic democracies. There is however exceptions to any rule and in some cases, economic freedom may exist without total political freedom as can be seen in Turkey. Through global economic engagement, democracies are created. Competition and trade stimulate growth, which leads to prosperity, which in turn results in the creation of a larger middle class. This larger middle class has more demands for its government, which is forced to stop relying on a few selected groups of elites22. While this is happening, trade also exposes inefficiencies in government-run corporations thus limiting the power of official to give out jobs discriminately. The above process is what is expected in a country where economic freedom goes hand in hand with political freedom. In Turkey however, the current government was able to circumvent the wishes of the larger middle class in favor of those of the elite few. The government also handed power to a few people royal to the ruling regime, thus controlling information circulating in the country as well as a small percentage of important trade routes. The protests began as a means of people to fight this infringement on their rights. The middle class become frustrated on government intrusion in their lives as well as lack of transparency on trade issues. Infringement on the freedom of the press, freedom of assembly as well as freedom of speech was a very big accelerant to the protests in May. The people wanted a voice and from the various postings and songs on the internet, they had no problem getting it. Bibliography Ercan, Fuat, “The Contradictory Continuity of the Turkish Capital Accumulation Process: A Critical Perspective on the Internationalization of the Turkish Economy” in The Ravages of Neoliberalism: Economy, Society and Gender in Turkey, edited by Nesecan Balkan and Sungur Savran, 21-37. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc. 2002 Feng, Yi. “Democracy, Political Stability and Economic Growth.” British Journal of Political Science 27, no. 3 (1997): 391-418. Geo, Uk, and Alexander C. Tan. “Democracy and Economic Growth: A Causal Analysis.” Comparative Politics 33, no. 4 (2001): 463-473. Holly, Williams. "Massive, violent crowds protest Turkish leader's policies". CBS NEWS. July 1, 2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57587219/massive-violent-crowds-protest-turkish-leaders-policies/ Letsch, Constanze, "Turkey protests unite a colourful coalition of anger against Erdogan". The Guardian. June 3, 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/03/turkey-protests-coalition-anger-erdogan Levitsky, Stephen and Way, Lucan, “The rise of competitive authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy 13, no. 2 (2002): 51-65 Mandelbaum, Michael, Democracy’s Good Name: The Rise and Risks of the World’s Most Popular Form of Government. New York: Public Affairs, 2007. Otsuka, Michael, Libertarianism Without Inequality. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005 Tiwana, Mandeep. “Neoliberalism and public unrest: Time to make the connection.” Aljazeera. July 4, 2013. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/201374123247912933.html Yackley, Ayla, “Insight: Simmering anger at Erdogan's authoritarianism boils over in Turkey.” Reuters. June 2, 2013. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/02/us-turkey-protests- insight-idUSBRE9510DJ20130602 Read More