Let's face it, Recep Tayyip Erdogan is in deep trouble and his Justice and Development Party (JDP) may take a long time to recover. All of that could have been averted, had the protests in Taksim Square been less angry, or had the authorities reacted more mildly. The manner in which things went out of hand in Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara and elsewhere in Turkey was as sudden as it was unforeseen. No one had expected Turkish streets to explode in scenes once associated with Habib Bourguiba Street in Tunisia, Tahrir Square in Egypt or Shohada Square in Yemen. The differences between the Turkish model and conditions in the Arab world are considerable. First of all, Turkey went through three fair and free elections, a feat we're still to see in the Arab world. Second, Turkey has an impressive record of economic performance unmatched in any Arab or Asian country, with the exception of Malaysia. This is true despite the financial prosperity and relative economic stability that existed in most countries in the region during this same period. Third, Turkey managed something that most countries in the region only dreamt of: it took the army out of politics, thus reversing decades of dominance and privilege by the military establishment. Turkey was a success story. Its liberal economics worked at the time when most European economies were having a rough ride. Its democracy seemed to give Islam a “secular” veneer, and its blend of European and Ottoman culture seemed to work. For the Arab world, Turkey was a more accessible model than the Malaysian, the Indonesian, or the Iranian. Here was a country that dared to challenge Israel and keep a healthy distance from America on crucial issues such as Cyprus and Iraq. Still, the Arabs didn't agree on what the Turkish model meant for them. Some were excited about its prospects, while others grasped it solely in terms of restoring the Ottoman Caliphate. Some thought of Turkey as a potential ally against Western “infidels”. And a few even fantasised about Erdogan liberating Jerusalem. We knew that not everything was fine Turkey, and yet we allowed ourselves the convenient assumption that the Turks were happy with the policies of the ruling Islamist party. Even when things were happening in Turkey that could have unleashed a storm of anger elsewhere, few eyebrows were raised. For example, the Syrians shot down a Turkish military plane and the Turks didn't react. A massacre happened in Reyhanlõ and the Turks didn't react. Several measures were taken that restrict freedoms and lifestyle of certain communities, and nothing happened. The Turkish ambassador in Israel was intentionally insulted, and nothing happened. When this last incident happened, I expected outrage to sweep over Turkey, but I was wrong. Then the army went into action in eastern Turkey, where hundreds were killed or injured in air raids. Again, nothing happened. The lack of public outrage suggested that the JDP must be doing something right, and will most likely be in power for years to come. Many expected the constitution to be changed so that Erdogan would become a president with extensive powers. So when public wrath was finally unleashed, the irony was mind-blowing. When the nation took to the streets, it was because of the government's decision to cut the trees of Taksim Square to clear the way for a commercial complex and a religious building. At first, it seemed that only the environmentalists were venting their rage, but within hours they were joined by young people from all over Turkey. A river of discontent had broken its banks. Everyone raced to explain what had happened. Some said that a hidden power struggle that was simmering inside the Turkish middle class had finally surfaced. Some said that a power struggle was underway between two middle classes — the old one that the military and the pre-JDP government relied on, and a new class that was intent on defending the “Islamist” interests in the economy. There has also been talk of widespread party and personal corruption, of immense wealth amassed by the Erdogan family, of his foreign bank accounts, and of 13 corruption charges against Erdogan since he was mayor of Istanbul. It was also said that senior bureaucrats were appointed through nepotism and that Islamist businessmen were being given extraordinary privileges. Furthermore, it was said that the West and international economic and financial institutions exaggerated the economic resourcefulness of the Erdogan government, perhaps to pave the way for a smooth access of Islamist parties to power in the Arab world. Now, it seems that either the economic performance of Turkey under the JDP was less impressive than it was made out to be, or at least that it fizzled out of late. Turkey used to have the second highest rate of growth worldwide, at eight per cent at one point. This rate recently dipped to 2.2 per cent, and the country still has to cope with servicing debts it incurred during its high growth period. Another problem is that Erdogan allowed his relationship with Turkish Alawites to deteriorate due to his position on Syria. Also, his government's decision to name a third bridge over the Bosphorus after Sultan Selim, a man who ordered the slaughter of 40,000 Alawites, was unfortunate. Meanwhile, the international media began to shed light on the deterioration of press freedoms in Turkey. In fact, foreign journalists often pointed out that several Turkish newspapers and satellite stations made no mention of developments in Taksim Square. Once again, a nation takes to the streets because a man, or a party, or a government acted with arrogance and allowed corruption to go unchecked. Once again, in the span of three years, a government blames digital media for touching off a revolution. Once again, large numbers of people with divergent backgrounds take to the streets to make it clear that democracy runs deeper than the ballot box, and that the latter should not be seen as a mandate for tyranny. We are also told that, because of divisions among secular parties, the only alternative to Erdogan is another religious group, that of Fethullah Gulen. Is Taksim the first step towards a new Middle East? It may seem like a lame thought, but this is what the US secretary of defense said a few days ago. Perhaps this revolution, or uprising, of Taksim will lead to something totally different. Perhaps it will be the first step towards liberating religion from politics, now that the good name of religion has been sullied in every country in which Islamists took power. All Islamist parties, without exception, have failed to safeguard national security and border safety, establish decent international relations, or uphold rights and freedoms in their countries. Let's all consider this question. Is it not an insult to Islam to be used by power hungry, indeed arrogant people, to achieve material wealth and political power? Also — they invariably fail. The writer is a political analyst and director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic research
