Tüm Entries Tagged: "Turkey’s AKP"
EGYPT’S MUSLIM BROTHERS: CONFRONTATION OR INTEGRATION?
Research
GLOBALIZATION AND POLITICAL ISLAM: THE SOCIAL BASES OF TURKEY’S WELFARE PARTY
Haldun Gulalp
İslamcı Muhalefet Partileri ve AB Katılım Potansiyeli
Toby Archer
Heidi Huuhtanen
Ortadoğu'da Siyasal İslam
Vardır Knudsen
SİYASAL İSLAM etkilemekle STRATEJİLERİ
ŞADİ HAMID
AMANDA Kadlec
Islamist Parties : participation without power
Malika Zeghal
İSLAMCI RADİKALİZASYON
Siyasal İslam ile ilgili meseleler, Orta Doğu ve Kuzey Afrika'daki Avrupa dış politikalarına meydan okumaya devam ediyor (MENA). AB politikası, son on yılda bu tür zorluklarla uzlaşmaya çalışırken, siyasal İslam'ın kendisi de evrim geçirdi.. Uzmanlar, siyasal İslam içindeki artan karmaşıklık ve çeşitlilikteki eğilimlere işaret ediyor. Bazı İslamcı örgütler, demokratik normlara bağlılıklarını güçlendirdi ve barışçıl, ana akım ulusal siyaset. Diğerleri şiddet yollarına bağlı kalır. Ve yine de diğerleri, daha sessiz bir İslam biçimine doğru sürüklendi., siyasi faaliyetten uzak. MENA bölgesindeki Siyasal İslam, Avrupalı politika yapıcılara tek tip bir eğilim göstermiyor. Analitik tartışmalar 'radikalleşme' kavramı etrafında büyüdü. Bu da 'radikalleşmeyi' tetikleyen faktörler üzerine araştırmaları doğurdu., ve tersine, 'yeniden radikalleşme'. Karmaşıklığın çoğu, bu üç fenomenin hepsinin aynı anda meydana geldiğine dair yaygın görüşten kaynaklanmaktadır.. Terimlerin kendileri bile tartışmalı. Ilımlı-radikal dikotomisinin siyasal İslam içindeki eğilimlerin nüanslarını tam olarak yakalayamadığı sık sık vurgulanmıştır.. Bazı analistler ayrıca "radikalizm" konuşmalarının ideolojik olarak yüklü olduğundan şikayet ediyorlar.. Terminoloji düzeyinde, radikalleşmenin aşırıcılıkla ilişkili olduğunu anlıyoruz, ancak görüşler, onun dini-köktenci ve politik içeriğinin merkeziliği konusunda farklılık gösterir., ve şiddete başvurma isteğinin ima edilip edilmediği konusunda.
Bu tür farklılıklar, İslamcıların kendilerinin sahip oldukları görüşlere yansımaktadır., hem de dışarıdakilerin algılarında.
Counter Transformations in the Center and Periphery of Turkish Society and the Rise of the Justice and Development Party
Ramin Ahmadov
Turkey and the EU: A Survey on Turkish MPs’ EU Vision
Kudret Bulbul
Even though Turkey’s dream for being a member of European Union (Bence) dates back to late 1950s, it can be said that this process has gained its momentum since the governing period of Justice and Development Party, which is shortly called AK party or AKP in Turkish. When compared with earlier periods, the enormous accomplishments during the AK party’s rule are recognized by domestic and European authorities alike. In the parallel of gigantic steps towardsthe European membership, which is now a real possibility for Turkey, there have been increasingdebates about this process. While some European authorities generate policies over Cyprus issueagainst Turkey’s membership, some others mainly lead by German Christian Democrats proposea privileged status rather than full membership. Turkish authorities do not stay silent over thesearguments, and probably first time the Turkish foreign minister can articulate that “should they(the EU) propose anything short of full membership, or any new conditions, we will walk away.And this time it will be for good” (The Economist 2005 30-31) After October third, Even though Mr. Abdullah Gül, who is the foreign minister of the AK party govenrment, persistentlyemphasizes that there is no such a concept so-called “privileged partnership” in the framework document, (Milliyet, 2005) the prime minister of France puts forward that this option is actually one of the possible alternatives.
zealous democrats : ISLAMISM AND DEMOCRACY IN EGYPT, INDONESIA AND TURKEY
The fear of Islamists coming to power through elections has long been an obstacle to democratisation in authoritarian states of the Muslim world. Islamists have been, and continue to be, the best organised and most credible opposition movements in many of these countries.
They are also commonly, if not always correctly, assumed to be in the best position to capitalise on any democratic opening of their political systems. Aynı zamanda, the commitment of Islamists to democracy is often questioned. Aslında, when it comes to democracy, Islamism’s intellectual heritage and historical record (in terms of the few examples of Islamist-led states, such as Sudan and Iran) have not been reassuring. The apparent strength of Islamist movements, combined with suspicions about Islamism’s democratic compatibility, has been used by authoritarian governments as an argument to defl ect both domestic and international calls for political reform and democratisation.
Domestically, secular liberals have preferred to settle for nominally secular dictatorships over potentially religious ones. Internationally, Western governments have preferred friendly autocrats to democratically elected, but potentially hostile, Islamist-led governments.
The goal of this paper is to re-examine some of the assumptions about the risks of democratisation in authoritarian countries of the Muslim world (and not just in the Middle East) where strong Islamist movements or parties exist.
Türkiye'nin AK Parti Başarı Arap İslamcılar üzerinde endişeler sulandırmak olmamalıdır
Mona Eltahawy
Abdullah Gül'ün Türkiye Cumhurbaşkanı olmasından bu yana hiç şaşırtıcı değil. 27 Ağustos, bu kadar yanlış yönlendirilmiş analizler nasıl boşa harcandı? “İslamcılar” demokrasi testini geçebilir. Zaferi şu şekilde tanımlanacaktı: “İslamcı” Türk siyasetinin rotası. ve Arap İslamcılar – Müslüman Kardeşler şeklinde, onların destekçileri ve savunucuları – hep Türkiye'yi işaret edecek ve Arap İslamcıları için endişelenmekle baştan beri yanıldığımızı söyleyeceklerdi.’ demokrasi ile iddia edilen flört. “Türkiye'de işe yaradı, Arap dünyasında çalışabilir,” bizi temin etmeye çalışacaklardı.Yanlış. Yanlış. Ve yanlış. İlk olarak, Gül İslamcı değil. Eşinin başörtüsü Türkiye'deki laik milliyetçilerin boğalarına kırmızı bez olabilir, ama ne Gül ne de Haziran'da Türkiye'de genel seçimleri silip süpüren AK Parti, İslamcılar olarak adlandırılabilir. Aslında, AK Parti Müslüman Kardeşler ile çok az şey paylaşıyor – üyelerinin ortak inancı dışında – Müslüman Kardeşler'in Arap siyasetindeki rolüne ilişkin korkuları azaltmak için Türk siyasetindeki başarısını bir sebep olarak kullanmanın saçma olduğunu.: kadınlar ve seks, the “West”, ve İsrail. Mısır'da asla yaşamamaya yemin etmiş laik bir Müslüman olarak İslamcılar iktidarı ele geçirmeli mi?, Dinle siyaseti karıştırmaya yönelik herhangi bir girişimi asla hafife almam.. Bu yüzden son birkaç yıldır Türk siyasetini şüpheci bir gözle takip ediyorum..
IS TAYYIP ERDOĞAN THE NEW NASSER
Last Thursday night, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan suddenly became the focus of all the news channels in the country. The reason was that he had stormed the diplomatic scene at a World Economic Forum panel in Davos by accusing Israeli President Shimon Peres for “killing people,” and reminding the biblical commandment, “Thou shall not kill.”
This was not just breaking news to the media, but also music to the ears of millions of Turks who were deeply touched by the recent bloodshed that Israel caused in the Gaza Strip. Some of them even hit the streets in order to welcome Erdoğan, who had decided to come to Istanbul right away after the tense debate. Thousands of cars headed toward the Atatürk airport in the middle of the night in order to welcome “the conqueror of Davos.
” ’Turkey is proud of you’
I personally had a more mundane problem at that very moment. In order to catch my 5 a.m. flight, I had left home at a quite reasonable time, 2.30 a.m. But the traffic to the airport was completely locked because of the amazing number of cars destined toward it. So, after leaving the taxi at the start of the long river of vehicles, I had to walk on the highway for about two kilometers, my hands on my luggage and my eyes on the crowd. When Erdoğan finally stepped out of the terminal, while I just walking into it, thousands applauded him and started to chant, “Turkey is proud of you!”
RISE OF "Müslüman demokrasi”
Vali Nasr
Bir hayalet Müslüman dünya haunting olduğunu. Bu hayalet malign ve çok köktenci aşırı ruhu ele notthe olduğunu, ne de henüz fantom umut liberal İslam olarak bilinen. Bunun yerine, the specter that I have in mind is a third force, a hopeful if still somewhat ambiguoustrend that I call—in a conscious evocation of the political tradition associated with the Christian Democratic parties of Europe—“Muslim Democracy.”The emergence and unfolding of Muslim Democracy as a “fact on the ground” over the last fifteen years has been impressive. This is so even though all its exponents have thus far eschewed that label1 and even though the lion’s share of scholarly and political attention has gone to the question of how to promote religious reform within Islam as a prelude to democratization.2 Since the early 1990s, political openings in anumber of Muslim-majority countries—all, admittedly, outside the Arabworld—have seen Islamic-oriented (but non-Islamist) parties vying successfullyfor votes in Bangladesh, Endonezya, Malezya, Pakistan (beforeits 1999 military coup), and Turkey.Unlike Islamists, with their visions of rule by shari‘a (İslam hukuku) oreven a restored caliphate, Muslim Democrats view political life with apragmatic eye. They reject or at least discount the classic Islamist claim that Islam commands the pursuit of a shari‘a state, and their main goaltends to be the more mundane one of crafting viable electoral platform sand stable governing coalitions to serve individual and collective interests—Islamic as well as secular—within a democratic arena whosebounds they respect, win or lose. Islamists view democracy not as something deeply legitimate, but at best as a tool or tactic that may be useful in gaining the power to build an Islamic state.
Veil Parting
shadi hamid
America’s post-September 11 project to promote democracy in the Middle East has proven a spectacular failure. Bugün,Arab autocrats are as emboldened as ever. Mısır, Ürdün, Tunus, and others are backsliding on reform. Opposition forces are being crushed. Three of the most democratic polities in the region, Lübnan, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories,are being torn apart by violence and sectarian conflict.Not long ago, it seemed an entirely different outcome was in the offing. Asrecently as late 2005, observers were hailing the “Arab spring,” an “autumn forautocrats,” and other seasonal formulations. They had cause for such optimism.On January 31, 2005, the world stood in collective awe as Iraqis braved terroristthreats to cast their ballots for the first time. That February, Egyptian PresidentHosni Mubarak announced multi-candidate presidential elections, another first.And that same month, after former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri wasshadi hamid is director of research at the Project on Middle East Democracyand an associate of the Truman National Security Project.Parting the Veil Now is no time to give up supporting democracy in the Muslim world.But to do so, the United States must embrace Islamist moderates.shadi hamiddemocracyjournal.org 39killed, Lebanon erupted in grief and then anger as nearly one million Lebanesetook to the streets of their war-torn capital, demanding self-determination. Notlong afterward, 50,000 Bahrainis—one-eighth of the country’s population—ralliedfor constitutional reform. The opposition was finally coming alive.But when the Arab spring really did come, the American response provide dample evidence that while Arabs were ready for democracy, the United States most certainly was not. Looking back, the failure of the Bush Administration’s efforts should not have been so surprising. Since the early 1990s, ABD. policymakershave had two dueling and ultimately incompatible objectives in the Middle East: promoting Arab democracy on one hand, and curbing the power and appealof Islamist groups on the other. In his second inaugural address, Başkan George W.. Bush declared that in supporting Arab democracy, our “vital interests and our deepest beliefs” were now one. The reality was more complicated.When Islamist groups throughout the region began making impressive gains at the ballot box, particularly in Egypt and in the Palestinian territories, the Bush Administration stumbled. With Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza high on the agendaand a deteriorating situation in Iraq, American priorities began to shift. Friendly dictators once again became an invaluable resource for an administration that found itself increasingly embattled both at home and abroad.The reason for this divergence in policy revolves around a critical question:What should the United States do when Islamists come to power through free elections? In a region where Islamist parties represent the only viable oppositionto secular dictatorships, this is the crux of the matter. In the MiddleEastern context, the question of democracy and the question of political Islamare inseparable. Without a well-defined policy of engagement toward politicalIslam, the United States will fall victim to the same pitfalls of the past. In many ways, it already has.
İslami Hareketi: Siyasi Özgürlük & Demokrasi
Dr.Yusuf al-Qaradawi
Bu bir görevidir (İslam) Hareket totaliter ve diktatörce yönetimine karşı gelen faz tostand firmasında, siyasi despotizm ve insanların haklarını gasp. The Movement should always stand by political freedom, as represented by true,not false, demokrasi. It should flatly declare it refusal of tyrantsand steer clear of all dictators, even if some tyrant appears to havegood intentions towards it for some gain and for a time that is usually short, as has been shown by experience.The Prophet (SAWS) said, “ When you see my Nation fall victim to fear and does not say to a wrong –doer, “You are wrong”, thenyou may lose hope in them.” So how about a regime that forces people to say to a conceited wrongdoer, “How just, how great you are. O our hero, our savior and our liberator!”The Quran denounces tyrants such as Numrudh, Pharaoh, Haman and others, but it also dispraises those who follow tyrants andobey their orders. This is why Allah dispraises the people of Noahby saying, “ But they follow (m en) whose wealth and childrengive them no increase but only loss.” [Surat Nuh; 21]Allah also says of Ad, people of Hud, “ And followed thecommand of every powerful, obstinate transgressor”. [Surat Hud:59]See also what the Quran says about the people of Pharaoh, “ Butthey followed the command of Pharaoh, and the command ofPharaoh was not rightly guided.[Surat Hud: 97] “Thus he made fools of his people, and they obeyed him: truly they were a people rebellious (against Allah)." [Surat Az-Zukhruf: 54]A closer look at the history of the Muslim Nation and the IslamicMovement in modern times should show clearly that the Islamicidea, the Islamic Movement and the Islamic Awakening have never flourished or borne fruit unless in an atmosphere ofdemocracy and freedom, and have withered and become barren only at the times of oppression and tyranny that trod over the willof the peoples which clung to Islam. Such oppressive regimesimposed their secularism, socialism or communism on their peoples by force and coercion, using covert torture and publicexecutions, and employing those devilish tools that tore flesh,shed blood, crushed bone and destroyed the soul.We saw these practices in many Muslim countries, including Turkey, Mısır, Suriye, Iraq, (the former) South Yemen, Somaliaand northern African States for varying periods of time, depending on the age or reign of the dictator in each country.On the other hand, we saw the Islamic Movement and the Islamic Awakening bear fruit and flourish at the times of freedom and democracy, and in the wake of the collapse of imperial regimes that ruled peoples with fear and oppression.Therefore, I would not imagine that the Islamic Movement could support anything other than political freedom and democracy.The tyrants allowed every voice to be raised, except the voice ofIslam, and let every trend express itself in the form of a politicalparty or body of some sort, except the Islamic current which is theonly trend that actually speaks for this Nation and expresses it screed, values, essence and very existence.
The Political Revival of Islam: The Case of Egypt
Nazih N. M. Ayubi
he Middle East was the cradle of the world’s three great monotheistic religions,and to this day they continue to play a very important role it its affairs.The recent events in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, and in Libya andPakistan, as well as the less widely publicized events in Turkey, Suriye, Egyptand the Gulf, have stimulated and renewed people’s interest in understandingboth the role of religion and the religious revival in the Middle East.It should be observed here that I speak of religious revival, not only of Islamicrevival, for in addition to Islamic movements we have the Likud bloc(with its important religious component) in power in Israel for the first time inthat state’s three decades of existence, while in Lebanon and in Egypt we canobserve Christian revivalist movements that cannot be regarded entirely ascounterreactions.However, it is the so-called Islamic revival that has drawn people’s attentionmost in the West, owing in part to political and international considerations.