The 'two states' in Ankara
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Cengiz ÇANDAR
It has been 14 years since I last attended a dinner at the Çankaya presidential residence organized in honor of a foreign state leader. During the administration of late President Turgut Özal, I joined some dinners held for the leaders of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and the newly independent Turkic republics at the time, in addition to the Arab and the Balkan countries from 1991-93.When former President Süleyman Demirel took office I was scrapped from the list. I don't know how the “residence cuisine” tasted during the presidency of Ahmet Necdet Sezer, but if the dinner in honor of the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is not an exception, the cuisine in President Abdullah Gül period tastes awful. After such a dinner, I left half-full, for instance; one might want to have a multiple-course meal somewhere near Çankaya.
Lack of imperial grandeur:
Regardless of the location, Talabani's dinners are known for their abundantly rich menu of kebabs in particular. Many guests attended the dinner in honor of Talabani on Friday night, including some of our state officials, most of whom probably know how good Talabani dinners are.
Looking at the menu, people (but of course all are ministers) would have thought the dinner for Talabani was actually an ill-minded plan to give him a “political message.” (I know that this was not the intention; besides, Talabani, as a man of “pragmatism,” wouldn't mind this.)
The new dining hall, which I hadn't seen before, was reflecting a lifeless, cold atmosphere reminding me of the eastern Europen countries under the communist Soviets regime. During the Nikolae Chauchesku period in Romania, dinners held in capital Bucharest, without doubt, set precedence for such an atmosphere.
We cannot jump to the conclusion though and say that after the Ottoman's splendor no “Republican aesthetic” was created in Çankaya. First resident of the presidential premise, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, was a man of Çankaya tables. During the Özal period, as far as I remember, the atmosphere in Çankaya reflected an image of a pretentious Turkey in the 21st century, though at the time it seemed far away from “imperial grandeur.”
My observations are definitely not stemming from a quest for political entertainment but rather have a “political meaning” based on a definition of Turkey and its future in addition to the 21st century vision and aesthetic of Ankara.
Where is the military:
The Talabani visit was also a poke in the eye for a person like me living in Istanbul that how deeply the “state tradition” was wounded in Ankara. Talabani is the president of a country which is boycotted by the Turkish military; plus, for evident reasons; he is the president of Turkey's most critical neighbor.
No one representing the military attended the dinner. A “working visit” it was, explanations were made. However, this would've been valid if there hadn't been even a single military representative attended the dinners held until today for many other leaders paying “working visits” to the Turkish capital. Military officials were not at the dinner, or any place else near Talabani, because the military openly had taken a stance against him.
Ankara likens a “two-state” place; one is the “political power” of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the other is the “other power” claiming to be the owner of the “Republic” and supported by some other political parties, especially the Republican People's Party (CHP); universities, judiciary and the military. And in fact, Talabani, aware of such structure, was eager to thank every time by saying, “I extend my gratitude to the government and the military, the commanders.”
If an American or a Western state leader had done it, naturally for all hell would've broken loose; and it was supposed to be so. This “abnormality” we experienced through Talabani was perceived as something “quite normal”, reflecting an Ankara anomaly.
Since Çankaya presidential residence is presumably “reserved” for the latter of the above two power centers, President Gül is not yet registered in his new “residence,” though he completely moved his “office”. Thus the awful Çankaya cuisine and interior decoration of Çankaya reminiscent of a former communist eastern Europe country could be blamed on that Gül has not yet completely “moved” into the Çankaya Residence.
This is of course more than an awful menu or decoration of the presidential residence, but the reflection of a Turkey that doesn't know how to make a decision on vital issues and how to implement them. It is also the reflection of this “state of ambivalence” felt all over the country.
Fierce discussions over the withdrawal of the Turkish military from northern Iraq going on between the opposition parties and the General Staff as the dimension of discussions the other day prove a deep cleavage occurred in the “other power” defined above; it, at the same time, show how complex the “power configuration” gets in Ankara.
Büyükanıt and the ‘insult':
“We take criticism as an insult," said Büyükanıt in response to Baykal, “discussions shadowed the success of the incursion. Those who insult the military will have to confront me," he added. The Chief of General Staff also challenged that he, himself, penned down the statement harshly criticizing the opposition leaders and accusing them of parties of treason.
The CHP rebuffed within hours. Not Baykal but Mustafa Özyürek of the CHP responded to Büyükanıt, meaning, Baykal did not accept the general as his addressee. Özyürek used equally bitter words. “The Chief of General Staff definitely has no right to accuse opposition parties of treason. No one has the right to employ any words, no matter what they are, to discredit the CHP by using the record or the stature of the main opposition party, which came to power with the votes of millions of Turkish citizens.”
That's correct; not only for the main opposition party but for any other parties, including the ruling party, representing millions, there should be some measures to apply in such remarks. The CHP blames the government rather than the military for the decision and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan steps forward to challenge the opposition so as to save the General Staff, “Leave the military alone and come to me,” Erdoğan was lashing out over the weekend: “If my Chief of General Staff is saying that he would take off his military uniform, and if the prime minister says that he would take off his suits in politics, then you either hush up or prove your claim.”
Why should the opposition hush up? They've already submitted a motion on the issue asking general council meeting in Parliament. That is to say, the opposition directly targeted the government. And if the General Staff stops involving, the issue would be debated in Parliament between the government and the opposition.
The prime minister, instead of screaming, “Come to me,” had said to the chief commander, “Withdrawal was not your decision; it was a political decision. And I have political responsibility. Let me handle this,” or rather if the chief commander would've agreed to take such a “role”, this row will quickly come to an end in Ankara.Büyükanıt cannot leave this issue to Erdoğan because he is not used to “alliances” but to have control of the “other power.” What would be the result of this smash-up?
If political parties reach an agreement and manage this “Ankara crisis” well, the road to being a more civilian country will be shortened. Both are hard to achieve
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=98752
With who the hell do you negotiate a settlement? ...talk about a deep state
