ANKARA: The Chinese have a saying, ‘May you live in interesting times’. It’s a curse. Turkey has been living in “interesting times” for the past two weeks. And it may be a while before the country reverts to uninteresting ones.

It is all about politics, power and faith. Faith in principles of state governance and social behaviour, not religion. The problem is that in Turkey the two dominant players in the life of the country, the government and the military, do not share the same principles.

There is nothing new about this. The general staff and the prime minister have had skirmishes in the past three years, the only consequence of which was the hyperactivity of editorialists and analysts, trying to read between the lines while adding drops of oil to the fire.

But that is “drama as usual” in Mediterranean politics. Now, however, events have taken a new turn.

This year is marked by two important elections, for the appointment of the president of the republic and the renewal of the parliament, in May and November respectively.

The head of the state is elected by two-thirds of the MPs. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had expressed early this year his intention to be a presidential candidate, knowing that his chances to be appointed were practically certain.

The ruling party, AKP, whose leader is Erdogan, has its roots in the Islamist movement, which has been the target of distrust and hostility by the secularist forces of the country since the latter’s creation in 1923.

Despite advice and criticism by the opposition — traditionally attached to the founder of Turkey Kemal Ataturk and his intransigent secularist doctrine — and certain quarters in the press and business communities, Erdogan decided to move forward with his candidature, assuring everyone who wanted to listen to him of his commitment to republican beliefs.

The armed forces (TSK) took this move as a provocation. On Apr 12 Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, chief of the general staff, gave a first warning. During a press conference, he said he hoped to see a president fully committed to secularity “not in words but in essence.” Two days later a large demonstration in Istanbul, organised by the opposition party CHP, sent a stronger signal to the PM.

Erdogan got the message. Conscious of the impending crisis, he decided to desist but left the suspense hanging for a while. Two days before the first round of the presidential election, the AKP nominated foreign minister Abdullah Gul, known for his Islamist positions, as its candidate.

At the end of the first round last Friday, Gul failed to win the presidency, receiving 357 of the 361 votes cast. The constitution requires that the candidate receive 367 votes to be elected — that is, two-thirds of the 550 total voices in parliament.

This result also had another consequence: CHP contested the validity of the election, since the absence of two thirds of the MPs at the ballot meant that there was no quorum for proceeding with the election. The opposition party took the matter to the constitutional court and organised a million-strong demonstration in Istanbul on Sunday, followed by additional violent rallies on May 1.

At 11:10pm last Friday, the same day of the first round ballot, TSK issued a two-page statement warning that it will not tolerate a president issued from the ranks of the political Islamist movement. Straight and to the point. “The Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) will display its attitude when it becomes necessary. No one should doubt this,” the communiqué emphasised.

The reaction of the government was bold. There was no way for Gul to pull out of the race, it said. It was undemocratic even to ask him this.

But Tuesday night’s decision of the constitutional court to annul last Friday’s election changes the settings on the battlefield. Gul has now agreed to withdraw his candidature and his party is brainstorming on the opportunities the crisis is offering.

A strategy the AKP may adopt is early elections — in the mid-June to early July timeframe. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) believes that swift, early elections would give it a good probability to increase its presence in parliament, which in turn would enable the Islamist movement to elect a president of its own choice with a comfortable margin.

These calculations may be accurate, numerically speaking. Although AKP’s poll ratings in 2006 had declined, its followers are obedient to party lines, and a large part of the population, regardless of political affiliation, is satisfied with the economic progress achieved during Erdogan’s premiership.

However, the fundamental problem remains intact. Any AKP-friendly candidate will always be perceived as a threat to democracy and secularism by the military and the opposition. Although the population is nominally Muslim in its quasi totality and at least half of the citizens practice their religion, a large majority remains unconditionally faithful to Ataturk’s ideals. In this context, a military intervention is still an option on the table, although its timing has changed.

This crisis has also affected the political landscape of the country. In addition to the political and military forces that have traditionally occupied the plateau, the business community has stepped into the debate with strong opinions and demands. In spite of its adherence to secularism, it has criticised the threat of military intervention and insisted on a democratic solution to the situation.

Tusiad, the largest business association, has even insisted on early elections, although they may favour AKP, fearing that prolonged uncertainty may turn away foreign capital, at a time when the Istanbul stock exchange is thriving while dominated by foreign investors to the extent of 75 per cent. Money, politics and religion can undoubtedly coexist in the crossroads between East and West.

Interesting times, like any other process in history, have a beginning, an apogee and an end. It looks like Turkey is in the first phase of the cycle.—Dawn/The IPS News Service