In Focus: Policy over posturing The success of the Justice and Development Party in the Turkish elections is a victory of pragmatism over pedantry, writes Galal Nassar The Justice and Development Party's (AK) electoral success in Turkey was a tribute to the skill with which it addressed both a foreign and domestic audience. It was, too, an indictment of its secularist opponents' failure to do the same. The secularists recycled slogans from the Ataturk era, hoping for a decisive battle with the Islamists. That was a mistake. Not only did they lose the elections, they failed to drive a wedge between the public and the AK. The lesson the secularists must now learn is that they cannot any longer ride on the tailcoat of secularism. Their repeated defeats make this clear. In the recent elections the secularist parties forged an alliance whose sole purpose was to defeat the Islamists. In doing so they blurred the differences between politics and ideology. The subtle differences between left and left of centre, as well as the major differences between, socialists and liberals, were all overlooked. An ideological melange emerged, with the sole purpose of excluding the Islamists. Theological differences eclipsed political, and the leftists refused to acknowledge the fact that the AK is far closer to them on social policy than the liberals. Likewise, the liberals refused to acknowledge that the platform of the AK over a matter as fundamental as EU membership is far closer to their own than that of left- leaning parties. The nationalists, too, chose to ignore that their own position on the Kurdish question overlaps with that of the AK. In short, secularism became the only issue. Other political differences were swept under the carpet. In the excitement surrounding the emergence of the secular alliance Turkish secularists ignored two things. They forgot that the idea of secularism as a viable objective, an idea dating back a century, may now be outdated. At best, secularism is an assumption open to confirmation or negation: elections held since the mid 1990s have all suggested that secularism is on the wane. Secondly, secularism has always been associated with the military, its ultimate guarantor. So instead of relying on public opinion to survive, Turkish secularism has always relied on military support. This, too, is getting a bit old fashioned. Turkey's secularists set themselves up for defeat the moment they adopted purely cultural slogans. They fought the wrong battle. Not that their opponents in the AK are noticeably adept in the cultural domain, but elections are a political affair. The public doesn't want to hear "edicts" and theoretical answers to political, social and economic questions. The public wants practical answers to the problems of housing, social security, unemployment and inflation. And the AK, which has been in power for five years, clearly provided more appealing practical solutions to such issues than its opponents. The irony of it all is that the AK, which many assume is obsessed with cultural questions, adopted a more pragmatic approach than other parties. It refrained from wasting time on discussing secularism per se. Instead, AK leaders told the public that they respected secularism and had no intention of undermining it. So the AK won the elections not because it played on the religious sentiments of the public, as the secularists may believe, but because it kept the issues clear cut. The secularists failed because they acted more as cultural associations than as political parties. This was the Turkish lesson, and its significance goes beyond the borders of Turkey to reverberate across the Arab world, Europe and the West. Some people assumed that a victory by the AK would alarm Western powers thought to be hostile to Islam. They were wrong. Europe and the US, the Vatican and Israel, all welcomed the AK victory. Countries that are hostile towards the Islamists of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas were not at all bothered by the AK win. This is not evidence of schizophrenia on their part but because the AK follows a policy that takes into account the views and interests of others, both at home and abroad. During the four and half years the premiere Tayyip Erdogan has spent in power he has demonstrated to locals and foreigners alike that his policies work. He put together an economic agenda that has boosted growth to seven per cent and increased foreign investment from $2 billion to $20 billion. Despite the support the AK enjoys in the Turkish street, Erdogan never attempted to use that support to repress his opponents or monopolise decision making. Take the dispute over the nomination of a new Turkish president. When the AK nominated Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, the opposition objected strongly. The AK then decided to wait until after the elections. Now that the AK has won a comfortable majority it can form a new government and name any president it wants. Secular parties may have the ideological support of the West but the AK is adept at handling the West. The AK is skilfully tackling the problems surrounding Cyprus and Turkey's EU accession. The AK has bolstered its ties with NATO and maintains good relations with Israel. Even the thorny issue of sharia has not proved too problematic. The Erdogan government may have opposed advertisement for women swimsuits, but it didn't say that these were haram, or sinful. It just said that billboards showing scantily clad women may distract motorists and cause traffic accidents. So Turkish Islamists have expressed themselves in a pragmatic manner. They stayed within legal and constitutional boundaries and gave the enemies of Islam no chance to discredit them. The greatest achievement of the AK is its success in neutralising the army, which sees itself as the guardian of Ataturk's secularist principles. The AK did so through consulting with the opposition, strict observation of the constitution, respect for the law and the avoidance of any semblance of despotism.
