Today's Journalist

On politics, academia, history and a wealth of topics, Kerim Belci, editor in chief of Today's Zaman daily newspaper in Istanbul had much to say.

Today's Zaman daily newspaper is a thoughtful publication that appeals to the highly educated and to decision makers among the population. It is also widely distributed and available online, in English. It's readers are 100% university graduates. Kerim describes it as a paper with its own perspective and not, admittedly, an objective one, but at the same time, he encourages people to read the competition to "get the view from both windows".

I found Kerim to be a very well-rounded commentator, as both an accomplished academic and a journalist. Often a journalist will have a unique perspective because they are constantly investigating and writing. An academic may have expert knowledge but be somewhat removed from the unfolding of events on the ground. The imminence of the Arab Spring, for example, was identified not by Middle East experts, but by journalists .Kerim Belci's perspective was captivating, informed and academic.

So what has been the effect of decades of radical secularism and state control been on Turkish intellectual life? Kerim believes that it is of concern that Turkey has tended to produce neither radicals or liberals. He makes the case that Turkish madrassas were, until the 17^th/18^th centuries, “Harvard”. Turkey then became caught up, according to Kerim, in enlightenment France, 200 years too late, while the rest of Europe was already grappling with post-modernism.

In comparing Turkey to Malaysia, Kerim asserted that the former is nothing but a successful economic example, with nothing to offer in terms of intellectuals. He observes that Malaysia has produced better in the last hundred years because Turkish intellectual life has been state controlled. He accuses the state of imposing the proselytizing of the “prophethood” of Ataturk. He says the youth tended to blame their “backward” religious parents for Turkey’s backwardness, but that it was rather state control on universities that kept Turkey from developing a vibrant intellectual life.

Another question that followed us from Malaysia, because it was also pertinent here in Turkey, was the question of democracy. How had democracy been able to develop here, even now in the hands of a government with an Islamic reference? Kerim said that he saw Islamism as an ideology which tends to die once the party comes to power: it is forced to become more pragmatic.

Anwar Ibrahim comes to mind, beleagered Malaysian opposition leader. Anwar began as quite a staunch Islamist as a zealous young university activist, and is now known for his reform-minded and pluralistic approach to politics. Not that he has yet come to ultimate power, but to be a contender he knows that he needs these attributes. It may also be a case of growing up. A party or individual which may have once been radical, simply matures, if not forced to mature when faced with the reality of politics and leadership.

Kerim adressed a question about sectors of the Turkish public’s concern with the AK party’s commitment to the secularism so prized here. He related how the AK Party had claimed to have taken off “our Islamist t-shirts” and believes that ten years of evidence is lessening the concern.

Another persistent question posed by group members, which we all wanted answered, was: could the present Turkish government be considered a viable model for Middle Eastern countries to emulate in terms of Islamic democratic governance, post Arab Spring? Kerim maintains that the Turkish experience is unique, but that they can share lessons and experience. For example: don’t give money and weapons to the same people, referring to the enormous power given to the Turkish military and the abuses that occurred.