Home

Whither identity politics?

aligokpinar.jpg

The statements of these two MP’s reveal how identity categorization has been central to the hearts and minds of Turkish citizens.

Ali Gokpinar
10 February 2013

Imagine a Turkish PM who argues that the Turkish nation and its nationalism is superior to those  of the Kurdish people.  Consider a Kurdish PM in the parliament putting Caussacian and Bosniac descendant of Turkish citizens into their ‘inferior’ place. Both scenes happened in the Turkish Parliament last week. Why are the statements these Turkish nationalist and Kurdish nationalist MPs make so very similar?  What do these two scenes tell us about identity politics in Turkey and peace negotiations between the AKP government and Ocalan?

Students of Turkish history and politics know that the founding mindset of the Turkish Republic privileged being Turkish and Sunni-Hanefi, and layered the primacy of other groups according to their ethnic and religious origins. In this case, Muslim immigrants and refugees (Bosniacs and Caucassians) coming from the Balkans and Caucaus were welcomed since they had the fundamental quality of Turkish citizenship and they were seen as receptive to the Turkish ethnie. Apart from Sunni-Hanefi Kurds, non-Hanefi Kurds were categorized as second to Bosniacs and Caucassians because they were seen as troublemakers and difficult to manage because of their salient group identities. Alevis and non-Muslim communities were in a worse situation, and thus, in the outer sphere of citizenship and belonging. This logic has been in practice since the Ottoman Empire understood that it could not keep its territories together and the famous Union and Progress Party leaders started to impose their Turkification policies in the early twentieth century.

Not much has changed in terms of state practices of citizenship and belonging. The statements of these two MP’s reveal how identity categorization has been central to the hearts and minds of Turkish citizens. Thus, it is not a surprise that the Turkish public discusses such statements with a certain discomfort not only because of their underlying antagonism but, more importantly, because they go to the heart of Turkey’s identity problems. There is, it seems, a continuum in identity politics from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic that has frozen both Kurds and Turks into at least one homogeneous dimension: the superiority mindset.  

Although Turkish nationalists argue that the peace negotiations and the bill granting Kurdish citizens the right to defend themselves in Kurdish in courts is provoking Turkish national sentiments, this cannot be explained only with this phenomenon, let alone justified. Nothing other than this nationalist conviction of superiority can explain the Kurdish MP’s statements as well.   

Recognition of Kurdish identity and cultural and language rights is perceived as a threat to the primacy of Turkish nationalism and identity, and to the positioning of Turkish nationalism(s) in relation to its Kurdish twin. On the other hand, the Kurdish nationalists are also positioning themselves due to the shifting identity politics. They reassert their position by reminding other minority groups of their status.  This process will deconstruct the hegemony of Turkish nationalism, identity and culture while providing space for Kurdish people and their rights. Yet, shall we expect the twin to do same to other groups?

This is just the beginning. The change is coming but it will bring problems as well. While cultural wars will unfold as the new democratic Turkey is constantly under negotiation, such statements will mirror Turkey’s problems. Although such statements are unacceptable and neither of the MPs gave a proper public apology - one of them made more of a mess while trying - they mirror the problems of Turkey. The good thing is that the Turkish public has an opportunity to revisit identity issues and imagine a liberal and inclusive society. Hopefully, it will not remain only a diagnosis of problems but also a process - of cure, healing and reconstruction.

Can there be a green populist project on the Left?

Many on the Left want to return to a politics based on class, not populism. They point to Left populist parties not reaching their goals. But Chantal Mouffe argues that as the COVID-19 pandemic has put the need for protection from harm at the top of the agenda, a Left populist strategy is now more relevant than ever.

Is this an opportunity for a realignment around a green democratic transformation?

Join us for a free live discussion on Thursday 22 October, 5pm UK time/12pm EDT.

Hear from:

Paolo Gerbaudo Sociologist and political theorist, director of the Centre for Digital Culture at King’s College London and author of ‘The Mask and the Flag: Populism and Global Protest’ and ‘The Digital Party: Political Organisation and Online Democracy’, and of the forthcoming ‘The Great Recoil: Politics After Populism and Pandemic’.

Chantal Mouffe Emeritus Professor of Political Theory at the University of Westminster in London. Her most recent books are ‘Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically’, ‘Podemos. In the Name of the People’ and ‘For a Left Populism’.

Spyros A. Sofos Researcher and research coordinator at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Lund University and author of ‘Nation and Identity in Contemporary Europe’, ‘Tormented by History’ and ‘Islam in Europe: Public Spaces and Civic Networks'.

Chair: Walid el Houri Researcher, journalist and filmmaker based between Berlin and Beirut. He is partnerships editor at openDemocracy and lead editor of its North Africa, West Asia project.

Had enough of ‘alternative facts’? openDemocracy is different Join the conversation: get our weekly email

Comments

We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData