Turkey and the discourse of authoritarianism

It seems that Turkey cannot catch a break these days. If it is not being maligned in the news for confronting Kurdish terrorism, it is grabbing headlines because it shot down a Russian warplane that entered its air space. As sensational as the latter story was, it is obvious that such events are rare. However, where Turkey is usually taken to task in the Western media is for its own record on press freedoms, freedom of expression and human rights. This Western obsession with Turkey’s official dealings with journalists and dissent may have some grounding in reality, but it is rarely brought to light for the sake of freedom; rather, it is often because of an insidious desire to denigrate, vilify and smear Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), which stands accused of authoritarianism.

I have said it before that there is always more to be done in terms of Turkey expanding human rights, ensuring a free press that can report effectively in the public interest and creating opportunities for the responsible use of freedom of expression. However, to harp on constantly about Turkey’s record belies the fact that the aforementioned shortcomings are not solely a Turkish problem; they are international.

For example, we hardly ever see or hear Western media outlets discussing Iraq’s atrocious record on human rights, freedom of expression or press freedom. In Iraq, you are not only suppressed, silenced and intimidated, but if you fail to heed the warnings of the governments (whether in Baghdad or Erbil) and government-linked militias, you will also be killed. Why the Western silence? Is it because it simply will not do for the Muslim Middle East’s first experiment with democracy to be seen for the Frankenstein monster of state-sponsored sectarianism, terrorism and corruption that it is? Laughably, the same state apparatus is being painted as a bulwark against Daesh expansionism when the Iraqi government is itself a prime cause behind the rise of the terrorist group.

Again, though, let us not only target Middle Eastern nations for criticism, but also look a little closer to the democratic heartland of Europe. In the aftermath of the first major exposé of the illegal, illiberal underbelly of government and state in the Western world, the Edward Snowden leaks, the British government had several interesting encounters at the offices of one of Britain’s largest liberal newspapers. As a result, the Guardian was forced to destroy its hard drives, files and any data pertaining not only to GCHQ’s mass surveillance programme, but also any other data that was leaked about other governments. Although it is clear to any right-minded person that such a news story is in the public interest within a democratic society, the British government thought otherwise and decided to force the Guardian to submit to its will, or face being taken to court under the Official Secrets Act. How “democratic and liberal”, and how quickly forgotten.

Also, let us not forget le Château de la Liberté on the other side of the English Channel. Days after gathering the world’s leaders for a pantomime march in Paris in support of freedom of expression following the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks, the French authorities even cracked down on artistic expression. The government in Paris did not find Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a French comedian, very funny when he made a joke on Facebook that combined the name of the drossy magazine with one of the attackers; he was charged with being a supporter of terrorism because he mocked the “Je Suis Charlie” slogan. This, of course, came from a state that had just hosted one of the world’s most symbolic marches of recent time in defence of freedom of expression, primarily in defence of a magazine whose sole purpose is to be as offensive as possible. This aspect was barely reported in the West, and when it was, very few people latched onto the idea that it was happening in France.

Back in Turkey, meanwhile, primarily left-wing Western journalists cannot get enough of nipping at President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s heels. Every time a journalist or public figure, rightly or wrongly, is hauled in front of a judge to face charges, hordes of Western journalists leap out of the woodwork to point an accusatory and hypocritical finger at the Turkish leader. What is interesting here is that the Turkish judiciary do not always take the side of the executive; take a case that was concluded just last October, for example. An Eskişehir judge ruled that some students calling Erdoğan a dictator and hanging up banners with the same message did not commit any criminal offence, but were in fact expressing a political opinion and not an insult. What is important to note here is that the judiciary is called upon by the Turkish government to settle such disputes; it does not simply make people “disappear”.

There are many examples of public personalities and newspapers taking things too far in Turkey. In a piece published by the leftist Turkish language paper Hürriyet, the author wrote that the people will one day park a police anti-riot vehicle over Erdoğan’s grave as it would be the only way to prevent people from spitting on it. Hürriyet is still functioning as a newspaper, is circulated widely and has not been closed down. Furthermore, Halk TV featured a programme called the People’s Arena where a well-known Turkish guest said, “I am going to f**k [Erdoğan]” with the other guest responding, “I am too tired, can you f**k him on my behalf?” Again, the TV station is still broadcasting.

Finally, look at this video made by Gökçe Çulhaoğlu, a radical leftist political party leader and main columnist of Türksolu (“Turkish Left”), wherein he threatens to hang Erdoğan and his government. Guess what? Both he and his party are operating in their Ankara headquarters and are not behind bars. Tell that to the media in the West, and it might cause them an aneurism as they point to Today’s Zaman being taken over by the authorities. Such matters are rarely one-sided affairs, yet the mainstream Western media chooses to focus solely on indiscretions committed by the Turkish government, real or imagined.

People often forget that politicians, although subjected to a far higher level of public scrutiny than others, are still private citizens. You cannot simply assault or threaten someone verbally and expect no response. Irrespective of whether or not the person being abused is a politician that does not give people the right to behave inappropriately. If the British press had published the news that David Cameron had, it is claimed, committed sexual acts on a deceased pig in a bizarre mix of necrophilia and bestiality without some kind of reliable source, I am sure that the prime minister would have sued, and rightly so. However, Turkey’s leaders are held to a different standard to that of their counterparts in the West. That might have more to do with orientalist fantasies and the need for Westerners to feel like moral crusaders than anything based on real journalism and facts.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.