Democracy Includes Feminists

by Richard Peres, published in Sunday's Zaman, July 31, 2011

The sad state of affairs for women in Turkey is well documented. The Global Gender Gap Report for 2010, a compilation based on five years of data by the World Economic Forum, is but one of many such indicators and reports.

In the report, Turkey is ranked 126th of 134 countries, behind even Egypt, Syria and Iran. The report focuses on four fundamental areas to measure how well women are doing compared to men in their country: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival and political empowerment. For example, labor force participation by women in Turkey is just 26 percent, the lowest in Europe, which includes rural women who work without pay. Also, women in Turkey earn about a fourth of what men earn and do not generally receive equal pay for equal work compared to men. Other reports by international and Turkish NGO’s further document the situation for women in Turkey, including continuing violence against women, lack of protection by the judiciary and law enforcement, and widespread employment discrimination. In addition, there is the additional burden borne by headscarf-wearing women, who only recently gained entrance into universities and continue to be unable to enter teaching jobs, state employment, and professional occupations.

Enter Fatma Şahin

Fatma Şahin was recently appointed minister of family and social policies, which is the new name for what was previously called the Ministry of Women and Family Affairs. Women’s groups lobbied unsuccessfully for this change not to occur, because it reduces the state’s focus on women. Fatma Şahin has an excellent reputation for championing the interests of women as a member of Parliament and head of the Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) Women’s Branch. However, she opposes affirmative action for women, has voiced belief in a “strong family” over “free women,” and recently stated that “feminism has not benefited anyone until now and will not in the future.” When I read this last statement of hers I was stunned. I asked myself, how is it possible for a women’s advocate to speak so strongly against other women who are also fighting for women’s causes?

As a possible explanation, Nicole Pope of Today’s Zaman wrote in a recent column that conservatives in Turkey associate feminism “with immorality, or they view the women’s movement as a Western construct.” In explaining the ministry’s name change, the prime minister said, “We are a conservative democratic party. The family is important to us.” For me these explanations fall short. I do not doubt or question the values put forth by conservatives from all parties regarding moral principles and customs. The issue in question is the imposition of those values to the exclusion of others, in this case, condemning advocates of women’s rights, equal treatment and safety simply because they call themselves “feminists.” This suggests not just a moral issue or a lack of sympathy with Western cultural constructs. It indicates an incomplete understanding of democracy. In a true democracy, rights and freedoms are not dealt with from only from the viewpoint of the majority, but from an all-inclusive perspective including women and minorities. Does not the AK Party government, as the ruling party, represent all of Turkey’s people, including all of Turkey’s women? How is it that the only woman minister in a cabinet of men doesn’t have a kind word for women’s organizations?

Feminists in Turkey

The most disturbing thing about Fatma Şahin’s comments is their lack of validity. In the early twentieth century women’s organizations advocated civil and political liberties for women, ideals which were adopted by the new Turkish Republic and were a major tenet of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s revolution. Beginning in the 1980s women’s organizations in Turkey fought against violence inflicted on women. However, a decade later identity politics began to fragment the feminist movement. For example, while Islamic feminist activists took up the issue of the headscarf ban, protesting in the streets and at university gates, secular feminist organizations went their own way.

In the last 40 years or so, feminist organizations in Turkey have progressed far beyond demonstrations and marches. They have become significant NGOs that bolster Turkey’s civil society and take an active role in social development programs in support of women, including efforts to improve literacy, provide health information and job training, to build women’s shelters and provide legal assistance. In some respects the government is just catching up to the work of these “feminist” women’s groups. Meanwhile, these organizations are in leadership roles, providing consulting to the World Bank and being funded by the United Nations. It seems obvious that these groups have benefited Turkey and will continue to do so in the future.

Divisiveness weakens the cause

The movement in the US to gain women the right to vote, which began in 1848, suffered changes in leadership and internal conflicts for generations, but eventually saw victory more than 70 years later, in 1920, thanks to the collective and increasing support of most women in the country. In the 1960’s women like Simone de Beauvoir in France, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and many others in America fought for equal pay and anti-discrimination laws. By the 1980s those laws were not only passed but implemented with substantial funding and institutional support at local, state and federal levels. Early US feminists were often subject to ridicule and opposition by men but managed by their sheer numbers and organization to affect substantial change in employment practices, the implementation of equitable civil laws, and increased protection against violence.

Unfortunately, the feminist movement in Turkey remains highly fragmented. Many conservative women do not support feminists and seem even revolted by the mere mention of the word, even though they have benefited from their increasing public presence, and from their pressuring government, the courts and other institutions to provide more freedom and better treatment for women. In addition, secular and Islamic women’s groups are not empathetic toward each other and do not cooperate nor collaborate – a sad state of affairs. Much like MÜSIAD and TÜSIAD they go their separate ways in lobbying the government. KADER, which supports the political rights of women, for example, shows no interest in supporting headscarf-wearing women. Lacking unity, the struggle to face the gender bias of men at work, in the courts, and in social life, seems insurmountable. Cultural values and the secular-Islamic split take precedence over solidarity and empathy. When women raised within this milieu of incomplete democracy and failure to understand what feminism stands for hold public office, the damage to the cause of women is that much more significant. Fatma Şahin’s comments about feminists within this context are not surprising.

Women have the numbers and accumulated wisdom to matter in Turkey, influence government and society, positively impact their status, and move Turkey out of its embarrassing ranking in the world regarding gender equality. The question is, will women respect the differing cultural values of their “sisters” and see the commonality of their cause? Will they come together on issues of freedom and equality over their own cultural preferences and personal values? I hope that the next generation of women in Turkey can figure out how to make this happen. All signs indicate that the current generation of Turkish women cannot seem to get their act “together” to support their own cause.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Richard Peres is an author and journalist living in İstanbul. Rich.peres@gmail.com

CNN Falls Short in a Video on Press Freedom in Turkey

by Richard Peres

Ekrem Dumanli’s article, “Time to Counter Global Lies,” (TZ, May 9, 2011) told of misinformation campaigns aimed against the AK Party and the Gulen movement outside of Turkey. However, it seems to me that the bigger issue relates to the mainstream Western media. To the casual television and Internet viewer of short news videos, the segments appear to be objective, balanced and fair minded. Both sides of an issue are presented. However the result can sometimes be distorted. I wrote about this phenomenon in a recent piece, “MSNBC Paints a Distorted Picture of Turkey” (TZ, April 25, 2011), exposing the flaws of an online article.

Ivan Watson’s two-minute video on the repression of journalists

Ivan Watson is a young yet veteran international journalist for CNN with an impressive track record at CNN and NPR, which is why I do not understand a recent short video he produced on CNN, called “Turkey’s Battle over Press Freedom.” It not only links Prime Minister Erdogan and the AK Party to the prosecution of thousands of journalists in Turkey, it does so without any attribution of supporting sources.

This is not to say that the arrests of journalists are not troubling and that the government has no accountability. Turkey’s record in this area is bad and indefensible, as revealed by visiting the sites of Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders, reading their reports on Turkey and seeing where Turkey is ranked. Certainly the Counterterrorism Law and articles 215 and 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, that facilitate the prosecution of journalists, are partly to blame, as well as a problematic judicial system subject to the same polarization prevalent elsewhere in Turkey. Moreover, there are those who cite the government for not doing enough to overhaul the judicial system to clear these obvious obstacles to press freedom. However, the video begins and ends with opponents of the government, with a five-second interval of comments by another view. It also intertwines the issue of Ergenekon arrests and repression of criticism of Fetullah Gulen, as if they were one and the same. It never stops to consider why the government would even want to have journalists who cover alleged coup plots against the government to be arrested. The result is a decidedly one-side report, unfortunately

I can understand how the Western press has picked up on the issue of journalists’ freedom in Turkey. As a Western journalist myself I can tell you that it irks me as well. But it’s up to CNN to delve a little deeper into the complexities of Turkish politics even in its short videos.

The CNN video begins and ends with the opposition

The video begins with coverage on the arrests of newspaper columnists Nedim Sener and Akmet Sik and states that more and more journalists are being arrested as part of a “coup investigation” (Ergenekon). It shows journalists protesting, then we see Can Dundar telling the camera: “As Turkish journalists we are here to protest the growing repression of the Turkish media by the Turkish government for the last couple of years.” By the Turkish government? It would have been better had Mr. Watson delved into this issue and let us know who in the judiciary are in the service of the government and who is not. The issue needs to be explained to viewers as well as the depth of political opposition to the AK Party on almost every issue. Instead the tone of the piece is quickly set by an opposition leader to the government.

The video then switches to the topic of Fetullah Gulen and the repression of Akmet Sik’s book. The clear implication is that the government is going after those who criticize Mr. Gulen, who is pictured as closely aligned to the government. Ihsan Yilmaz was asked if it’s dangerous to criticize Fetullah Gulen in Turkey today and responded, “That’s the image they are trying to create; this is a smokescreen campaign.” Full stop. Mr. Yilmaz is on screen for all of five seconds the is quickly gone. An allegation that attacks on the journalists come from Turkey’s generals is mentioned, but then Prime Minister Erdogan becomes the subject on screen to the following voice over: “Commentators say that as his grip on power has tightened, Erdogan has become less tolerant of criticism.” Thus the video again links journalist repression to Erdogan thanks to unknown “commentators.” This statement is immediately followed by Andrew Finkel on camera: “I thought that Turkey was becoming a more liberal place; I thought that if you dismantled the military apparatus then the country would be freer.” Full stop. What questions was he answering? What was the context of his statement? We will never know but the impression given is that he is referring to Turkey not being free. Switch to picturesque shots of Istanbul with another voice over that “over 50 journalists are now in prison and thousands of others are defending themselves in criminal cases in court.”

This video ends with how it began, with Can Dundar, who states: “We want to be free to write. We want to be free to talk. And we want to be free to publish our books without any repression or fear.” Switch to protests led by Mr. Dundar with the final voice over from Mr. Watson: “Under fire, journalists are demanding that the government do more to protect a fundamental democratic right.” This is the third strike against the government. It is the guilty party regarding journalists.

A serious problem for Turkey

The lack of press freedom in Turkey strikes a nerve in the West, and for good reason. It is a clear indicator of democratic values. The mainstream press has picked up on this issue and will not drop it easily, an area that generates bad PR for Turkey and provides a hindrance to its joining the EU. The ruling party needs to do a better job of addressing the issues and explaining its actions to the West, particularly when asked in public forums. Nevertheless, CNN should take more care in how it covers this complex topic in Turkey.