Yusuf Kanlı

Polls in northern Cyprus indicate the existence of a deep frustration with the ruling coalition government, particularly with the senior coalition partner, the Republican Turks’ Party, or CTP, of Prime Minister Ferdi Sabit Soyer. Reading the latest public-opinion polls, one may easily conclude that the Turkish Cypriot electorate is out to punish the CTP for failing to fulfill its 2003 election pledge to "[bring] an end to the international isolation of northern Cyprus even if a settlement cannot be reached" on the island. The frustration in northern Cyprus is so deep, polls say, that if the 2004 referendum on the failed Annan peace plan Ğ which received an overwhelming 65 percent approval Ğ were to be repeated today, 53.8 percent of Turkish Cypriots would say "no," while only 27.9 percent would say "yes," with the rest undecided but leaning toward voting "no."

Despite our general distrust in opinion polls, we believe this result must be taken as a very strong wake-up call by the CTP as well as President Talat. This was not the first poll in recent times to indicate such a radical shift in the views of the Turkish Cypriot people. A poll conducted last June produced a similar result, demonstrating that the "yes" block in favor of a compromise, and even a bitter settlement on Cyprus had shifted since the April 2004 referendum, in favor of the "no" block.

Similarly, while a 2003 vote had been a cliffhanger, with 50 seats in Parliament equally distributed between the "yes" and "no" blocks, or between the CTP-led leftists and the conservatives led by the National Unity Party, or UBP, the latest polls indicate that the UBP will likely win some 46 percent of the votes on April 19 while the CTP’s votes will drop to around 25 percent. Even if the UBP might not form the next government alone, the total conservative seats in Parliament might not just be comfortably sufficient to form a nationalist coalition, but might be strong enough to change the Turkish Cypriot constitution without the need to compromise with the left.

Why the change?

Of course there were reasons for the change in the electoral pattern in northern Cyprus. In 2004, Turkish Cypriots voted very strongly in support of a settlement. In 2005, the winds of change and the demand for a compromise settlement were still so strong that "advocate of the national cause" Rauf R. Denktaş felt compelled to step down and not seek re-election. Thus, pro-settlement Talat became the Turkish Cypriot president.

What did Talat and Soyer pledge to the Turkish Cypriot people between 2003 and 2005? They told the Turkish Cypriots that their strong pro-settlement resolution would be rewarded by the European Union and the United States with the lifting of the international isolation of northern Cyprus even if peace efforts failed and the island could not resolve the decades-old power-sharing problem between its two ethnically, linguistically and religiously different groups of people. On that "road to resolution," settlement efforts suffered a very important setback when Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan, or U.N., peace plan, in the 2004 referendum. Just five days afterward, Greek Cypriots were awarded with EU membership despite their "no" vote, while Turkish Cypriots were pushed into an even more intractable international isolation, thus punished.

Though some palliative moves were undertaken by the EU and the U.S., and though Talat was accorded red-carpet treatment by some countries, in reality nothing changed in northern Cyprus toward the betterment of the living conditions of Turkish Cypriots. Mothers who voted during the 2003-2005 period for settlement and for pro-settlement candidates in hopes that at least their isolation would end, that their sons and grandsons would see a future on the island and not have to leave it, have lost all their hopes. Furthermore, in the renewed Cyprus talks, Talat has not thus far been able to achieve any substantive progress on any of the fundamental issues, and has bowed to the "I will leave the talks, unlessÉ" blackmail of Demetris Christofias and agreed to the "single citizenship, single sovereignty" demands of the Greek Cypriot side.

Now, Talat is appealing to Turkish Cypriots, saying that if he and his supporters are not given support in the April elections, there will be chaos on the island. The answer of the Turkish Cypriots: We are fed up! Let it be!

I woke up with the telephone on the bedside ringing painfully. A very sorry voice on the other end was reporting the passing away of İlhan Çevik. He was ill for a long time. He was last hospitalized on Saturday because of some intestinal complications. Death is the destiny of all human beings. Still, I was unprepared for such news, shocked. For some time I could not move. Decades of memories passed in front of my eyes. I met İlhan Çevik for the first time on an autumn day in 1977, the day when I joined the Daily News. Everyone was scared at the time of the boss İlhan Çevik, but somehow, from my first day on I managed to develop a special relationship with him. But, it was when I left the paper in 1985 to do my military service in northern Cyprus that he became all of a sudden very much like a half father to me. I was to benefit from a just legislated law and finish my military service in eight weeks; however, when I went to Cyprus I discovered that the law did not cover me and I was expected to serve for two full years in the military. I had left in Ankara my wife, Aydan, and 6-month-old daughter, Cansu. I was on the island and it was impossible to leave without completing the military service. My family in Ankara was without money, I, on the island, was without money.

I called the paper and informed colleagues there that I will not be able to return as scheduled within two months and explained the situation. I was in a totally desperate situation, though there was a consolation: At least my father-in-law would look after my wife and daughter.

Few days later, at the gates of the garrison, there was a young lady. She was Öznur Çevik. She was sent by İlhan Çevik. She presented me an envelope saying "This is from my father. He said you should not worry about Aydan and Cansu. We will take care of them."

There was some money and a letter in the envelope. The letter was assuring me that I, as well as my family back in Ankara, would receive some money every month and my wife and daughter will be provided with plane tickets to visit me when commanders allowed. More important than that, I was assured that I would still have my job at the paper upon my return.

Indeed, I received similar envelopes throughout my military service and when once I was posted to Ankara for a four-week rehabilitation tour I was presented with a thicker envelope, which besides some cash, included a voucher and a bus ticket for a short holiday on the Antalya beach with my wife and daughter.

On my return to Ankara my desk was ready for me with a welcome note from İlhan Çevik.

İlhan Çevik was a monumental man for me and many others who appreciated his success in founding the Daily News on March 15, 1961, and sustaining its publication uninterrupted for so long despite all the odds. Often he was talking about the difficulties of the first three months of the paper and the modest party he threw when three months in publication was completed. Why? Because so far all previous English-language newspaper attempts had failed and none managed to survive three months.

For almost 30 years I served with İlhan Çevik, until majority shares of the paper were sold to the Doğan group and the Çevik family left the paper while I stayed. During those 30 years naturally we had good and bad days but I never, ever lost my respect for İlhan Çevik who anyhow was a master of gentlemanly behavior, though a perfectionist regarding meeting the deadlines.

"Irrespective how good a paper you produce, if the paper cannot reach the reader it is just a waste of time and money! The first target is to reach the reader. The second is to produce a good paper. If you can produce a good paper and reach the reader at the same time, than you are a good newspaper administrator," he was saying. His words have always been my guidelines in long years when I was serving as an executive at the Daily News.

İlhan Bey, you shall always live in our hearts and minds. My condolences to Öznur, İlnur, the entire Çevik family and the friends of İlhan Çevik. May Allah rest him in peace.

Note: İlhan Çevik will be laid to rest in Ankara today after completion of religious rites at the Kocatepe Mosque following the noon prayers

From asserting the leadership role of Turkey in its region and emphasizing the role the country could play in regional peacemaking efforts to the Cyprus issue and continued cooperation between Turkey and the United States in the fight against the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, there were many expectations in Ankara for the 16-hour visit of new U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. But probably none of the political leaders of Turkey were thinking in their wildest dreams that Clinton would be traveling to Ankara for the funeral of the March 1, 2003, "syndrome", would lend an unexpected and strong support to Ankara’s calls for an end to Turkish Cypriot international isolation and would raise the curtain on a new era in Turkish-American relations by announcing that Turkey would be among the places visited on the first European tour by President Barack Hussein Obama.

The Clinton visit, beyond any doubt, reflected a change in perception of Turkey in Washington. Whether that would please the Islamist Justice and Development Party, or AKP, administration of Turkey is of course something else, but Clinton underlined at every opportunity she could that the perception of the Bush administration that Turkey is a "moderate Islamic country" that would be a "role model" for Muslim nations Ğ against the radical Iranian model Ğ has been replaced by a perception of a "democratic and secular republic with an overwhelming Muslim population." Does this mean the "moderate Islamist" AKP has completed its lifecycle in Turkey? It’s too early to make a comment on that yet. Still, such remarks by Clinton underscore the opening of a new climate in the American approach towards Turkey that centers on the respecting of human rights, individual rights, democracy and secular democracy.

The highlight of the Clinton visit indeed was indeed the news that Obama would be visiting Turkey "in a month or so." Commentators immediately started speculating whether Obama would visit Ankara as part of his European tour early in April, or within the framework of the yet-unscheduled visit to the Middle East sometime later. When and as part of which program the visit Ğ which definitely carries the prospect of being the most important diplomatic development for Turkey in 2009 Ğ would take place of course has meaning. Does the Obama administration consider Turkey as part of Europe, or just as a key player in the Middle East?

Obama coming on April 7

Reports from Washington indicate that Obama will be visiting Ankara on April 7 as the last stop of his European tour, which will take him first to London on April 2 for the Group of 20 summit, then to Strasbourg, France, for a NATO summit to be held on April 3 and 4. His third stop will be Prague, for a meeting of European Union leaders on April 5. After that, we are hearing from friends in Washington, he will head to Turkey.

Clinton told the Ankara news conference that the visit was decided while she was flying to Turkey and the timing of it would be set soon. That means the Turkey visit was added to Obama’s already-scheduled European tour. This itself is a revolutionary development as the schedules and itineraries of U.S. presidents are decided upon well in advance, and do not change unless extraordinary situations present themselves. Obviously, not only was the schedule of the European tour of Obama changed, but a very strong message is being given by the new U.S. administration to the EU in support of the Turkey’s EU membership bid. Furthermore, the stress made on the decision of the U.S. and Turkish foreign ministers to work together to lift the international isolation of Turkish Cypriots is both boost to the Cyprus talks and a reminder to the EU that punishing Turkey over Cyprus would be a gross injustice.

Armenian resolution

But, do all these things imply that the threat of the U.S. Congress legislating the contentious so-called Armenian genocide bill this year is over? Well, let’s hear what Foreign Minister Ali Babacan is saying: "I still see a risk. Obama pledged five times during the campaign and even made a written statement that he would take that move. I still see a risk."

Will the visit of new U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Turkey help in opening of a new era in the Turkish-American relations that suffered so much since the March 1, 2003, Parliamentary rejection of an authorization request demanded by the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government to allow the U.S. open a second front in the war on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq through Turkish territory? The trauma opened in the bilateral relations with the March 1, 2003, Parliamentary rejection was long "officially" replaced with recourse to the traditional allied relations and security cooperation, particularly in the fight against terrorism and re-energized support of Washington for Turkey’s European Union accession bid. Yet, the distrust created by the March 1 Parliamentary rejection and the punitive actions taken by the U.S. against Turkey, particularly through overstepping the red lines of Ankara in Iraq. Though ever since the 2007 resumption of security cooperation against terrorism and particularly intelligence sharing considered crucial in Turkey’s fight against the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, terrorist gang presence in northern Iraq there has been a decline in the rampant anti-Americanism in Turkish society, it has to be conceded that the post-Iraq invasion concerns and resulting tensions in the Turkish society against the U.S. policies in the region are continuing to linger.

Obviously, the anti-Americanism in Turkey was much different than anti-Americanism elsewhere and could perhaps be best described as "anti-Bush-ism." The change of administration in the U.S. could serve as a booster in reinstituting the lost confidence dimension in the bilateral relations. Indeed, President Barack Hussein Obama making his first presidential call to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas; indications that he would work for a lasting peace in the Middle East; assertions that he would withdraw American troops from Iraq; declarations that U.S. presence in Afghanistan would not last forever; declared commitment for a just and lasting peace on Cyprus and repeated assertions by both Oboma and other leading members of the new U.S. administration that Turkey’s leadership was needed for a resolution of the regional problems all indicate that change for the better is in the pipeline for Turkish-American relations.

Contentious issues

Some important contentious issues that have the potential of spoiling the atmosphere in ties are the election-time commitment undertaken by Oboma to recognize the 1915 killings of Armenians by the former Ottoman Empire as "genocide", claims of rising anti-Semitism in Turkey and the AKP administration’s relations with Syria, Iran and the Palestinian Hamas terrorist gang.

Even though there are indications that the Oboma administration may not take up the "genocide" issue this year because of the current rapprochement efforts between Turkey and Armenia, it won’t be fortune telling to say Turkish-American relations will succumb to an unprecedented crisis if the issue is taken up by Congress or if Oboma in his April 24 address uses the word "genocide."

A third added element of discontent might be the forthcoming Turkish moves at the United Nations Security Council to postpone by one year the arrest order issued against Sudan’s Omar al-Beshir by the International Criminal Court on charges that he committed genocide in the region of Darfur. Relations with Hamas, Iran and the Bashir of Sudan are important for the AKP administration’s neo-Ottomanist proactive foreign policy. Relations with Bashir are important for Ankara’s Africa opening, while ties with both Hamas, Syria and Iran are considered by Ankara as a requirement of its regional peacemaking role. Paradoxically while the proactive foreign policy of the AKP government (particularly its role in Syria-Israel dialogue) is appreciated by the U.S., as well as the EU, such relationships developed by the AKP are considered as well as signs of Turkey tilting towards East, and radicalism.

The recently released human rights report of the State Department (that bitterly accused the AKP government of oppressing the Turkish media and restricting freedom of expression and complained of a surge in torture, deaths in detention houses and in prisons) will be yet another contentious subject that the AKP government will raise in talks with Clinton.

Hillary Clinton will definitely have some tough talk in Ankara.

Apparently, in a week or so the second volume of the "Ergenekon" thriller, pardon indictment, will be available to be serialized in the allegiant media outlets of the majoritarianist-democratic government of the Sultan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan I of the Great Fear Empire. The allegiant media has already started reporting that in the new volume of the thriller there will be a section on coup attempts against the administration of His Highness Erdoğan I. In the meantime, His Highness the sultan told three representatives of the Imperial Pen Club during a live TV interview on the Imperial TV channel that because of the Ergenekon case he was receiving threats both from inside the country and abroad but would not disclose those threats now. That is, the nation will not be able to read the threats the Sultan has been receiving in either the upcoming second volume of the Ergenekon thriller (which according to claims will be about 1,500-pages thick) or in the third volume, the writing of which has not yet started. Erdoğan I told the Imperial Pen Club representatives that perhaps he would reveal the threats he has been receiving because of Ergenekon if and when he writes his memoirs. It would be great if His Highness writes in detail how he managed to drift the Republic of Turkey, a secular, democratic modernity project, toward becoming an Islamist republic. Perhaps he would inform us as well what the contribution of the Pennsylvania-based Fethullah Gülen hodja and his brotherhood organization was in achieving the goals of political Islam in Turkey. He, as well, could perhaps explain to the Turks at what point exactly and why he, Abdullah Gül and Bülent Arınç decided to part from the Necmettin Erbakan political clan. Was there any American advice behind their move?

Writing a memoir must be a duty

Leading figures of exceptionally important periods should definitely write their memoirs because only through such records we might have the possibility of leaving future generations a more accurate account of what indeed was most likely lived during those times.

Is it not unfortunate that almost none of the political leaders of the recent past left behind their version of what was lived? Celal Bayar, the third president, was an exception. To a certain extent İsmet İnönü, the second president and war of liberation hero, fulfilled that duty. Still, apart from a partial memoir and several books that compiled his statements, it would have been a great service to this nation had we had today a detailed memoir written by İnönü himself. At least many eminent figures of that period left very valuable books about the İnönü era. But Adnan Menderes was brutally hanged by the 1960 coup and he did not have an opportunity to write his account about the very important developments that took place in Turkey in the 1950 to 1960 Democrat Party, or DP, government period. Bülent Ecevit was very busy writing poems and working on a novel. He kept on postponing writing his memoirs. Perhaps he wrote one but has not yet been released by his wife Rahşan, who knows. But, people very close to Ecevit in his last period are saying that he was planning to write his memoirs and had compiled many documents, but was trying to finish a novel and then would start writing his memoirs. Death came early!

Can anyone imagine the treasure former President Süleyman Demirel might have? After more than 50 years in public and political service and almost two decades after serving as the president of the republic, Demirel is no less than a living library or an eyewitness to history. With his help many people have written very valuable books on political understanding, policies as well as the achievements of Demirel as a statesman. Yet, a first-hand account would be precious. Writing his memoirs and shedding light on many very important domestic and external developments must be considered a duty for Demirel.

Necmettin Erbakan hodja must write his memoirs as well. For example, it would be great to read from Erbakan the background of the 1974 Turkish intervention or why he thinks his former students Erdoğan, Gül and Arınç "betrayed" him and parted their ways.

Similarly, there are various other monumental people who should write their memoirs as well. One of such people, of course, is Professor İhsan Doğramacı. Another one is former Foreign Minister İlter Türkmen. Former top commanders are no exception. It would be great to read what indeed Turkey went through after some time passes, the current dust and storm settles and for example the Ergenokon thrillers become just some detail in history.

Did you have a chance to see Bernardo Bertolucci’s "The Last Emperor"? It is a dramatic history of Aisin-Gioro "Henry" Pu Yi, the last of the Emperors of China, from his lofty birth and brief reign in the Forbidden City, the object of worship by half a billion people; through his abdication, his decline and dissolute lifestyle; his exploitation by the invading Japanese, and finally to his obscure existence as just another peasant worker in the People's Republic. I must say it was a great biographic film on the life of Pu Yi, who at the age of three was named the Emperor of China, and died as a peasant worker.

I was reminded of this magnificent film when I read in Güngör Mengi’s column Wednesday that at an election rally in Istanbul some supporters of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan did the unthinkable and raised a "The Last Ottoman Sultan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan I" placard.

Was the placard a surprise to Erdoğan? Apparently not because not only he did not ask his supporters to put the placard away but more so for a long time he has been acting like a sultan anyhow. Many people who have interest in the last period of the Ottoman Empire would recall for example the oppressive regime of Sultan Abdulhamit the Second. Right, Abdülhamit II was one of the most talented diplomat-sultan this country ever had. He rigidly opposed the creation of an Israeli state in Palestine. For the most part of his long reign there were subsidies on almost everything and the average citizen of the time did not feel the impacts of the economic collapse of the empire. However, during that period the coffers of the empire was emptied, the economy of the empire became the hostage of some foreign countries and debts of the empire skyrocketed to such levels that up until the early 1950s the young Turkish Republic continued to pay back the inherited debt.

Worse still, Abdülhamit II was so obsessed with security, so scared that he would be killed that he had established a perfect police state. That period saw the creation of an advanced intelligence agency. Such a ruthless system was established that it is impossible not to shiver reading the stories from that time of sons reporting on their fathers, borthers reporting on brothers and of course of those people concocting fictional plot theories and sending imperial security agencies on their enemies. One could say that while for a minority the Abdülhamit II era was a paradise, the Ottoman Empire had turned into an empire of fear particularly for the intellectuals.

The new sultan!

The new sultan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the First indeed did exactly the same, but through different methods. He created an allegiant media. He has been leading a ruthless campaign against his opponents and calling on the citizens to boycott those media outlets that continue to criticize him and his administration. That’s not enough, his administration is clamping ruthless fines on the media companies that insist on not joining in the allegiant media camp. What happened to the Uzan group is a bitter reminder for the rest. The attacks on the Doğan group testify to the ongoing campaign of the new sultan to get rid of all of the opposition and of all of the critics at any cost.

Was he not the sole decision maker when it came to pick a new president for the Turkish state? Is it not he who decides singlehandedly on the future of all civil servants irrespective of their seniority? Is it not he who decides singlehandedly the steps to be taken in the economy, domestic politics as well as in foreign policy? Who will become governor; who will become ambassador; who will become director general of a state concern or any of the "autonomous" bodies? Erdoğan has become the single and undisputed decision maker for such top appointments as well. Unfortunately, the placard raised by Erdoğan’s supporters in Istanbul was nothing more than acknowledging what has been already accomplished and continuing on for many years. What’s so far missing is people not yet started glorifying him with "Long live my Sultan" chants. Perhaps that’s also in the pipeline. Once the neo-Ottomanist and neo-Islamist AKP of Erdoğan gets over 50 percent in the upcoming mayoral elections, Turkey may start witnessing the last stage of this transformation.

In democracies, however, emperors may sometimes face bitter consequences.

There are of course lots of ways to describe it. In some parts of Anatolia, as well as in Azerbaijan, for example, people use "Hörmet," which is "courtesy" in describing it, in some other parts people use "Hatır" or "respect." In modern Turkey, bribery has officially become "bahsish" or "tip." If the minister in charge as well as the director general of that government office appear in front of cameras and defend a group of land registry senior officials accused of getting bribe with a, "They did nothing wrong ... People happy about buying a new house or some land might offer land registry officials some ’bahsish’ or tips. Receiving a tip is not a crime!" mentality and if a court of this country agrees that the land registry officials received tips, not bribes, thus committed no crime, it will never ever be possible to have success in the fight against bribery in this country. It did not even make it onto the front pages of newspapers last week when the Ankara Police Department launched an operation on the Sincan Land Registry Office and arrested scores of officials on charges that they have established a gang and were systematically robbing citizens who buy or sell property in the Sincan area. According to claims the allegedly corrupt officials were intentionally creating problems for the citizens, delaying completion of their work and thus forcing citizens to pay bribes or increase the number of bribes they offered.

Accordingly, at one point the director and his assistant discovered the secret cameras; first they attempted to uninstall them but later restricted themselves with redirecting the cameras to some empty desks only, assuming that cameras did not record voices as well. In their recorded conversations the director was reportedly stressing that even though he and some of his staff might be detained and brought to court he was confident that as happened to the personnel of the Keçiören Land Registry Office they all would eventually be released and compensated for the time under detention or arrest.

Indeed, under the current perceptional reality in Turkey, the police operation was a futile effort if it was part of a drive to wipe out bribery in this country. At a time when people documented of receiving bribes were set free by courts on grounds that what they received was a tip not bribe; if the political administration of the country is engaged in election bribing, distributing from coal to refrigerators, dishwashers to food coupons to citizens with the pretext of conforming with both the social state stipulation of the Constitution and the alms offering tradition of cultural Islam, why did police think that the Sincan Land Registry Office personnel was violating the laws by accepting "tips" or "bahsish" offered by "happy citizens"?

If we can’t stop it, let’s enjoy it

The Keçiören case is now at the Court of Appeals. It will take months for the court to finalize the Sincan case. We cannot vouch from now whether the appeals court will uphold the verdict of the Keçören case and help institutionalize bribery or whether the court will make a different verdict in the Sincan case.

Whatever the eventual outcome might be, it is obvious that as long as the government of this country believes in the merit of nourishing a beggar society; as long as we have judges who, under what influence we cannot say (because of a possible heavy penalty under the contentious Penal Code Article 301 on charges of insulting the Turkish judiciary), can mix up a bribe with a tip or "bahsish," can it be possible for anyone to think that bribery is a crime in this country? Or, is it possible to assume that a fight against bribery may succeed in this country?

Perhaps it is wiser to accept the reality as it is; stop pretending to be something different than what we actually are; accept that we have become a "beggar state" and a "beggar society" and place "bahsish" or tip boxes at government offices.

We may establish as well rules of how to share the money collected in the tip box and thus achieve at least a fair share of the bounty among out civil servants. Since we cannot stop it, it will be good to legitimize and institutionalize bribery.

Recently, at one of Ankara’s splendid five-star hotels there was a rather rare pluralist workshop on participation of women and the "less advantageous members of the society" in politics. It was a rare pluralist event because, for a change, people from different views and political tendencies were invited. The event was hosted by the Turkish Democracy Foundation, or TDV, under the patronage of Nimet Çubukçu, the state minister in charge of women affairs. Representatives of women groups, as well as chairpersons of various disabled associations and foundations presented snapshots from Turkey through their perspectives and listed demands for an increased say for their groups in politics. These demands included allocation of a certain percentage of quota for women, as well as the disabled, in both local and parliamentary elections. There were people as well who opposed such forced measures and instead called for positive discrimination measures to be taken by the government to encourage women and the disabled to engage more in politics.

There were some participants who preferred to talk about hard-core issues such as gender equality, place of women in society, participation of girls in education, deprivation of women from heritage rights, forced "religious marriage" of girls at very young ages (as young as 9 to 10) contrary to the civil law as well as the continued polygamy practices not only in rural areas but even among parliamentarians and members of the Cabinet. Naturally, minister Çubukçu was upset with such questions, which she condemned as attempts to "dilute the very important discussions" being held with tabloid journalism approaches. For the minister, asking how many Cabinet members or how many deputies were participating in polygamy was not an acceptable question from a "respectable" journalist though she was aware that at least one of her male Cabinet colleagues, scores of deputies of the ruling AKP, and some of the opposition deputies were participating in polygamy, or one wife with an official marriage contract and one or more wives with religious marriage contracts, which is not recognized by the state.

If a country claims to be on the path to European Union membership; if gender equality and recognition of the inalienable rights of women are among the founding pillars of that modernization process; and if in both the government and Parliament of that country there are some backward-minded people still engaged in polygamy and the head of the government is taking no measures to bring an end to that primitive practice at least among his ministers and deputies of his ruling party, obviously it becomes all the more clear how successful the lip service is that the government and prime minister have been paying to democracy, gender equality and indeed this country’s EU membership bid. Sorry to say but "Turkey is a train heading to West but the passengers are walking East on the train" appears nothing but a misconception because the Turkey train might have two locomotives, one in the rear pulling the train to the East and one in the front pulling it to the West and Turkey is dangling to the tunes of the Ottoman Mehteran band: Two steps forward, one step backward... What is "forward" and what is "backward" depends from where one looks at that train and what he understands from those expressions.

A Nigerian’s case

But, at least the Interior Ministry has apparently woken up last week and remembered that Turkey is a country adhering to the supremacy of law and in Turkish civil law polygamy is prohibited. Apparently an application by a Nigerian man (who was married in his home country but under Islamic rules applicable in his country that allow a man to have up to four wives obtained a "No restriction for marriage" document from his country) to take a second wife in Turkey prompted a heated exchange of communications between the Interior and Foreign ministries. Eventually, the Interior Ministry finalized the discussion saying regardless of what might be the rule in their home country, foreigners living in Turkey were to conform with laws in Turkey and thus under Turkish civil law a man cannot take a second wife.

Congratulations to the Interior Ministry for reminding of the law! Will our law makers realize as well that since they are not just living in Turkey but making laws and applying laws in this country they should be the first in conforming to the laws?