Anatolian wisdom against dependent groups’ divisive mindset

Some columns published in U.S. media claim that the ideological dimension in the competition with China is lacking or weak. We are not likely to determine what sort of deficiency this may be based on the ideology concept. There are substantial differences between the problem underlined by U.S. media and the meaning we associate with the ideology concept. As the ideology concept corresponds to a world view – at least in one aspect – for us, we find it a little difficult to see complaints in the U.S. press about the lack of any philosophical dimension in colonial and imperialist objectives. The West, expressly, the U.K. and France, were burdened in the 19th century with the responsibility of civilizing other nations. Surely this duty was embraced by all strata of Western societies. The grand wealth that resulted showed this duty was fulfilled. After the 1950s, the same wealth would then pass onto the U.S. patronage. Democracy, which gained popularity with the French Revolution, human rights, and freedoms, were the concepts that stood out in the fundamental ideology of the system established under U.S. leadership. Anti-democratic autocracy is being built today in the fight against states such as China, Russia, and Türkiye, as the fundamental concepts of a new imperialist ideology. However, there are clearly problems in finding takers, especially among the Western public. The complaints rising in the U.S. media may be considered within this frame.

Though there are issues in the West in terms of having anti-democratic autocracy accepted as a new ideological division or opposition, it is safe to say that this ideology has not been hard to sell in Türkiye. Of course, we would need to list individually the factors affecting this, and underline intellectual dominance, and the strength of dependent groups in gaining depth within this frame. However, we will suffice in this column with emphasis on the recipients’ presence alone. We see today the reflections of anti-autocratic democracy even on vast masses. What matters to us is that similar opposition has been ongoing for almost two centuries. The real factor ensuring this continuity is not the power of the ideology, but the depth gained by dependent groups. This opposition will be central in the upcoming election, and naturally, the presence of dependent groups will be voted on as well in this election.

The strengthening and deepening presence of dependent groups in this vast network of relations is not a problem pertaining to the present. Of course, we inherited all this in the last two centuries. There is no need to mention that this is a very long time. These dependent groups not only gained depth and strength over such a long period, but they also expanded their network of relations by influencing various traditions. Their influence over right-wing conservative religious groups is seen as a serious weakness in terms of autochthonous and nationalistic politics, but this is a natural result with respect to the length of the process. Dependent groups gained social depth with the inclusion of other minority groups in the network of relations established by non-national minority groups. Small capital groups and religious groups joined this process over time.

I really don’t pay much attention to answers to the question of who predicted July 15 and how long before it happened. Of course, these answers need to be given “without taking others for fools.” Because as the election approaches, the answer to who and what will get the votes at the ballot boxes will become clearer. I see no harm in stating it openly: The Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) and the network of relations including this group will be voted as well in this election. Surely, we will need to consider the presence of dependent groups in the Turkic and Islamic regions. The bitter experiences of the past are extremely valuable, but we are clearly gaining similar experiences today, through to the future. If it was possible to intellectually analyze FETÖ and dependent groups back in time, they would not have been able to recklessly attack right and left on July 15, 2016. Sadly the same intellectual susceptibility did not form after July 15 either. Despite this, autochthonous and national politics found correspondence at a depth that could not be achieved by dependent groups. This is interesting as well. As I tried to express in the previous column, we are approaching the dividing mindset of dependent groups with Anatolian wisdom once again.

It is now clear that frequently used oppositions such as right-wing, left-wing, progressionist, reactionist, secular, religious, Sunni, Alevi, Turkish, and Kurd, do not reflect Türkiye. The real opposition will take shape in this election with the response to the U.S. and U.K.’s aims in the Turkish and Islamic region. That is when a new era will start.