2 Harvard International Review Blog » 2007 » May

May 21, 2007

Turkey’s Extreme Secularism

Filed under: Democratization, General, National Politics — Samantha Fang @ 11:15 pm

Recent demonstrations in Turkey—such as the one today in Samsun, where thousands of flag-waving citizens flooded the city’s central square—have affirmed the country’s commitment to secularism. Protests began in early April against exiting president Ahmet Necdet Sezer’s attempt to nominate Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul as the presidential candidate. There is overriding public concern, especially among women and the upper middle class, that the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), a party with Islamist roots, will use the July 22nd presidential and legislative elections to broaden its scope and push religion into the public sphere. At risk is the balance of power between secularists and Islamists in Turkey, threatening the legitimacy of the AKP’s one-party rule. The protests could lead to a broadening of the political base to mitigate populist demands, but there is fear that a coalition government would become more nationalist and less stable.

Turkey has been cited as an example of the compatibility of Islam and democracy, with Indonesia as another salient example. The AKP government, under Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, has led the country through five years of stable one-party government, economic growth, and lowered inflation, as well as attracted foreign investment and began talks with the European Union about membership. However, news that Gul—a conservative whose wife wears a headscarf—was named a possible successor to Sezer whipped the public into frenzy. The pure symbolism of the veil brings into question just how secure Turkey’s identity is as a secular state, with its extreme separation of church and state.

In response to the protests, Gul has removed his name from consideration, and the AKP is trying to project itself as a moderate group. It has recently declared its intention to name women and entrepreneurs as candidates in Turkey’s July 22nd elections. However, despite the AKP’s declarations of secularism, parties such as the secular Republican People’s Party (CHP) have been gaining steady support. The July 22nd elections could mark a major change in the demographic of Turkey’s Parliament, in which the AKP now holds 363 of 550 seats. The outcome of the demonstrations and the July elections will prove a interesting example of how a moderate Islamist party can sustain itself—or not—in a secular democracy.

May 19, 2007

Finally Exclusive: the Human Rights Club

Filed under: General — Lauren Fulton @ 4:41 pm

When the United Nations Human Rights Council elected new member states several days ago, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from around the world won a small victory with the rejection of Belarus on the grounds of the country’s noncompliance with UN human rights specialists. However, the problem facing the Council remains: the scarce competition for seats creates an inability to screen countries with signifcant past human rights violations, and the Council’s integrity suffers as a result.

Over 40 nongovernmental organizations, and the Human Rights Watch in particular, rallied to prevent Belarus’ acceptance to the Human Rights Council. As recently as last January, the Special Rapporteur of Belarus expressed concern over the country’s lack of compliance with the Council, and the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Representative on human defenders both noted Belarus’ refusal invite them into the country. Along with these specific citations, the NGOs also demonstrated disfavor toward Egypt, Qatar, and Angola, but these three countries were admitted. The difference is that Egypt ran in a ‘closed bracket’ of four African countries for the four available spots in the African region, whereas Western powers apparently compelled Bosnia and Herzegovina to apply as an alternative to Belarus. Of the five geographic regions, three introduced the same number of applicants as they had seats, effectively preventing selectivity among nations.

Are countries really not interested in being part of the Council? Perhaps they are, because the United States is outwardly very concerned with human rights yet refused to apply for a position two years in a row; its actions were a response to alleged bias within the Council, which produced legislation last year that included eight resolutions criticizing Israel yet only one chastising Sudan. Other than the possibility of internal politics, the Human Rights Council also must face the disillusionment of many countries because of its ineffective predecessor, the Human Rights Commission. In an attempt to prove its commitment to reform, the Council announced last year that it would avoid hypocrisy by upholding human rights as a standard for admissions of member nations. With the scarcity of an applicant pool, however, it is caught in a vicious cycle of disillusioned nations desiring reform yet not providing enough support to enact it. Because of this, many (but not all) of the applicants to the Council are attempting to prove a commitment to human rights in words and resolutions rather than actions.

In an effort to show its desire for change, the Council is meeting in June to decide a way to evaluate the human rights records of UN member nations. It is imperative that the Council provide a way to assess its own members as well, and if politics (of the wrong sort) prevent the development of an effective system, the Council will have no way to regain face and attract more members. For now, we can just wait and hope that the Human Rights Council can prove its effectiveness to the UN and thereby persuade countries that are genuinely committed to human rights to become its leaders and advocates for change.

May 18, 2007

Controversy in the Elysée

Filed under: Europe, General, Immigration, National Politics — Allie Fixsen @ 7:24 pm

On Wednesday, Nicolas Sarkozy took his place at the Elysée Palace as the next president of France. The leader of the center-right UMP, Sarkozy is known as an energetic politician who acts quickly and decisively, and he comes to office with plans for changes for France in nearly every field. Sarkozy won 53 percent of the vote compared to Socialist Ségolène Royal’s 47 percent in the second round of the presidential elections on May 6th, which saw a staggering 84 percent voter turnout rate, effectively providing Sarkozy with a mandate for his program of massive changes.

France currently has an unemployment rate of 8.3 percent, the highest it has been in twenty-five years, as well as sluggish economic growth. In order to combat this and create a France that is truly competitive in the European and world market, Sarkozy has plans to reward growth and increase competition, goals which have historically been difficult to achieve in France. He also plans to reform the current social welfare system to prevent people from staying on welfare when they could accept employment.

As Interior Minister, Sarkozy was known as a major proponent of law and order and a hardliner on illegal immigration. Among his proposed changes is the creation of a new “Ministry of National Identity,” a hugely controversial proposal. Many of those living in the suburbs – poor, multi-ethnic, and largely of immigrant origin – see such a ministry as a threat and an attempt to exclude them from mainstream French society. Others, however, support Sarkozy in advocating positive discrimination – what the United States calls affirmative action – to help reduce youth unemployment, particularly among youth of immigrant origin. This, in turn, threatens mainstream French society, as one of the principle values of the French Republic is equality and the French Constitution prohibits designation by race.

Sarkozy brings grand plans with him to the Elysée Palace, but parliamentary elections are June 10th and June 17th, and he could potentially face tough opposition in passing his proposed changes. Many are very controversial, and Sarkozy himself can be quite polarizing. One thing is sure – Sarkozy brings a change in attitude to the office of French President, and it will surely be interesting to watch how things play out.

May 13, 2007

Trouble Brewing in Pakistan

Filed under: Geopolitics, South Asia — Kiran Bhat @ 1:09 am

For the first time since 1999, when he seized control of Pakistan in a bloodless coup, President Pervez Musharraf is facing genuine opposition. The current conflict in Karachi, Pakistan’s commercial hub, has not escalated to the point at which Musharraf’s rule is seriously threatened, but it underscores his political fragility.

Musharraf’s most vocal rivals in the recent violence have not been the hard-line religious fundamentalist who are the targets of America’s War on Terror. Rather, the nation’s incensed lawyers, judges and political opposition have aligned to speak out against the government. The violence plaguing Karachi has its roots in the March 9 sacking of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the popular chief justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court. Chaudhry had gained a reputation as an honorable and independent judge, one who did not shy away from sensitive topics such as the disappearance of political activists during Musharraf’s rule. When Musharraf dismissed Chaudhry under the pretense of nepotism and corruption, the public perception was that the president was suppressing a rival. Opposition parties jumped at the opportunity to openly criticize the president and began organizing rallies in support of the ousted chief justice. Soon thereafter, violence commenced.

The opposition claims that the sporadic gunfights in Karachi were instigated by supporters of Musharraf in an attempt to prevent Chaudhry from speaking to lawyers who had gathered in the city to hear him. Supporters of Musharraf have claimed the opposite, that elements of political opposition have teamed with Chaudhry supporters to start a commotion and distract Pakistan from the judge’s ills. Most probably, the violence is a combination of the two, as forces loyal to Musharraf clash with those loyal to Chaudhry. For his part, Musharraf has called for calm, but as the situation escalates, with 34 dead and 120 injured, that calm may be elusive.

The overthrow of Musharraf’s government, an acquiescent ally in America’s War on Terror, would be an absolute nightmare scenario for President Bush and company. However undemocratic Musharraf may be, he has provided pro-Western rhetorical support and a modicum of stability to a Muslim world which lacks both. His fall would not only bring an end to that stability but would give an unpredictable entity control of hundreds of nuclear weapons and the Muslim world’s most powerful army. With Iran developing nuclear capability and the military situation in Iraq rapidly deteriorating, a hostile government in Pakistan would amplify the precariousness of America’s geostrategic position.

The main question remains whether Musharraf can come out of this mess on top again. Considering his stranglehold over regular military forces and the relatively small size of the current opposition, he will most likely win this round. But if he continues to indiscriminately consolidate power by antagonizing popular public figures, Musharraf may find himself quickly overrun. At that point, power would be up for grabs and those familiar fundamentalists would surely take a stab.