THE VARIED CULTURE OF DEMOCRACY TODAY

By Jason McCue, 29 Sept 2016

Has Boris seen the light in respect of Turkey or did he just like the look of their washing
machines that they pulled out of their pockets?

It was pleasing to see our new Foreign

Secretary dash from the United Nations General Assembly to Ankara. Lets hope he, a Turk
and a card, went and returned with a new perspective on Recep Tayyip Erdogan, different
from the one he penned in his humorous ode to the Turkish President earlier in the year.
Perhaps, like my own experience at the UNGA, he witnessed the chaos of the world, as each
crisis around the globe bared its soul. What was on show was the dangers of IS, civil war,
coup dtats, and Arab Springs in conjunction with prevailing western puritanical policy views

of democracy, on world pivotal states, whether they be ancient or fledgling. It was self-evident
but not discussed that a wholesale global rethink on strategy, foreign policy and what is
democracy is required by the international community.
Simply put, we must redefine our attitudes on democracy. Liberalism has been hijacked by
puritanism. We must be better satisfied with cultural democracy i.e. a kind of democracy
that culturally works in a particular country that we might also class as authoritarian - that
would be more pragmatic, if we are to fend off the more overwhelming threats from IS or the
more dangerous coup makers. Before I lose my liberal credentials, Im not on about brutal
dictatorships but benign-ish authoritarian regimes that do not always act as we in the West
may wish or aspire them to but, nevertheless have the legitimate will and backing of the
people. Those that are popular and have a clear electoral mandate but nevertheless might not
be saints or live up to textbook liberalism.

We must stop, as an alternative to such,

mistakenly supporting or turning a blind eye to shadowy figures and organisations - in the
name and perception of puritanical and myopic views of democracy - to counter authoritarians,
only to later discover we have let the genie out of the bottle. Turkey, that most ancient jewel of
civilisation, perhaps is the best example and a model for foreign policy attitudes in the new
age.
After decades of western foreign policy aimed at propping up dictators, to protect our oil
interests, the Arab Spring saw a tectonic shift, on the hoof, to propping up any rebellion
dressed as democracy to oust dictators. We didnt care if we thought the new guys were a bit
dodgy or if we could smell a wolf in a democratic fleece, so long as they looked good in the
moment and were likely to succeed against a dictator. Slam-dunk. However, the gap left by
dictatorial or authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and Africa in particular, has not been
filled by golden boy friendly looking democrats but mostly by religious radicals.

So the West should take care at criticising Erdogan for his authoritarian tendencies in the
immediate aftermath of a coup attempt and especially so long as the democratic will of Turkey
clearly seems to be supporting such actions. Perhaps what we are witnessing in Turkey is a
reformation of the old dictatorship style of leadership: modern authoritarians rule with an iron
fist but rule by listening to the will of the people. Authoritarians too would be wise to heed

Darwinism and evolve to the modern age if they are to survive. Likewise, the West too cant
have its cake and eat it it needs to embrace those that evolve, and see it as the new way
forward particularly in the Muslim world. Perhaps the antidote to IS is staring us in the face
Erdogans Turkey.
Last year I warned of the currency of coups in Africa - driven by profit and mineral
exploitation and the danger of their encouraging further coups if left unpunished and
unabated.

I called for the international community to get tough on coup makers, for a

deterrent to be fostered, and for greater international cross-border cooperation in the pursuit
of justice against the culprits.
Whilst the international community has done little or rather nothing in the interim, it is not
surprising we have seen another coup attempt this year against Turkey.

Once again a

democratically elected president faced overthrow.

What is startling is that the weight of the international response and condemnation in the
aftermath of the Turkish coup is on the incumbent president and not on the criminals that
plotted his and the democratic governments demise. It is the wrong signal to give if one wants
to deter future illegal coups in Turkey and elsewhere around the globe.

It appears easier for commentators to Erdogan bash than to criticise the culprits in the
shadows, the clandestine coup makers. He has form in taunting the West, the Kurds and his
opposition. He's therefore hard to like in the context of how he has been portrayed and even
harder to feel pity for in the wake of the coup dtat.
Criticism and condemnation of the man may be grounded. But he is not just a man; he is a
democratically elected leader and holds the presidential office of not a remote or insignificant
country, but of a historically and geographically key country. He did not cheat or force his way
in to office but got there through the ballot box. He may have authoritarian tendencies but he
has the electoral democratic backing of the people in a country that thrives on its own form of
cultural democracy.

As much as a soldier salutes the uniform of another rather than the man within, our analysis
of the coup dtat should not be focused or formed based on our views and prejudices towards
the man but on the office he holds. Instead, respected editorials confuse the issue of the coup
dtat by forming their opinions on their just reflections or prejudices against the man because
he does not live up to our misguided slavish adherence to only puritanical views of democratic
liberal values of today.
Democrats should unwaveringly condemn the coup, the coup makers and support all attempts
at pursuing justice. For the culprits are not only criminals under international law but also
terrorists. There is no difference in law between a coup maker and an IS terrorist. They are
the same they seek to overthrow a legitimate government through force rather than
democratic means.
That the coup failed is testament to the courage of the Turkish people.

Unlike the

international community, most elements of Turkish society united in their rejection of

unconstitutional change and came together to protect their cultural democracy. The coup
attempt ironically brought a greater degree of unity to Turkey than at any time in recent
years. Nevertheless it has left an existential crisis in society. The Turkish people seem to call
out for cultural democracy within an authoritarian regime to get them through the
existential crisis they find themselves in. The coup has deeply damaged society and sown
mistrust. That fragility has naturally led to steps to remove suspects from society. What is a
natural reaction to an existential crisis (needing authoritarian cultural democracy) on one side
is seen on the other, by the west, as brutal suppression by an authoritarian regime. We
should be slower to criticise and quicker to embrace the will of the Turkish people. Turkeys
current positioning may be the answer to the flaws in our current foreign policy that pursues a
utopian puritanical democracy abroad that we cannot live up to ourselves at home and which
in turn foments radicals hatred towards us for our hypocrisy.
There is now an opportunity for mutual cooperation and benefit with the Turks - which in turn
could see the international community, obtain a change for good within Turkey and the region.
The president and the people of Turkey need our understanding of their cultural democracy,
support, and international help to ensure the coup is prosecuted and does not occur again.

There is a deal to be made. The opportunity to make real progress on important matters such
as the Kurds, Syria, operation Euphrates Shield, Russia, Israel and even countering regional
fears of state radicalisation could not be better. All the West has to do, to kick start this
potential, is to embrace the reality and benefits of a policy of cultural democracy over
puritanical democracy and in that context enable itself to show judicial comity through
cooperating in delivering justice against the coup makers.
Even Erdogans detractors in Turkey will claim that Glen and his movement were behind the
coup attempt.

The facts will no doubt emerge in time but for far too long have western

countries been dismissive, at least in public, of the developing threat following the breakdown
between the two former allies. Glen, viewed by the West as a moderate Sufi, was seen as a
potential friend due to him having enough influence to counter the authoritarian Erdogan. He
was seen as a potential asset and worthy of having a home in USA. The lessons of Iraq,
Egypt, Syria and Libya should warn us to be very wary of what we wish for. Glen may be a
convenience for puritanical democratic views but he is surely not what he seems allegations
of his involvement in the illegal and bloody coup attempt proves that if one was ever in doubt.
Whatever the case, we should be as wary of Glen as we should have been wary of Bin Laden,
who after years of being a convenience for western foreign policy, later shook the pillars of the
world to remind us how wrong we can get it.
The founder of the modern Turkish state, Atatrk, felt religious sects, similar to Glens, to be
a threat to the country. He banned them and thus kept secularism in front and radical
Islamism in tow. As his legacy waned, so did that balance. Glen, the billionaire spiritual
leader of a mysterious Islamist organisation (both public facing and clandestine), The Glen
Movement, came to power through helping the government rid the state of the Kemalists and
secularists who had run a deep state within Turkey for decades. But in turn the Glenists
filled the deep state gap within the Turkish bureaucracy and used their influence and power
to persecute political enemies. Glenists are in the millions with potentially tens of thousands
of members within the state machine (including the army, police, intelligence agencies, and
the judiciary). More on point the Glenists dominate foreign policy. Glen Turkish schools
are in over 160 countries. They have been described as the modern- day version of Protestant
missionaries or rather Turkish Islamic preachers that spread their word around the globe.

There is a clear pattern of Turkish foreign policy being dictated and led by Glenists,
particularly the African expansion policy (from 2011) through the means of first opening of a
religious school, then opening Turkish Airline flights, followed by the opening of a diplomatic
mission before the arrival of the Glenist multi-billion-business empire. Thus, just criticism of
Turkeys foreign policy - to bring back the old Turkish religious global caliphate - was wrongly
blamed on Erdogan and should be rightly seen as Glenist.

The West, apparently blind to Glenists influence, blamed Erdogan for everything that
Turkey did wrong in its eyes. The Turkish people on the other hand appear to have seen
through Glen. In 2009, the Turkish people hit the streets at the funeral of Trkan Saylan,
Turkeys leading womens rights advocate, blaming Glen for her persecution.
It is not surprising that Erdogan fell out with Glen around 2012, which progressed, into cold
civil war between the AKP government and the Glenists until it erupted into the open coup
attempt earlier this year. The international community, due to its blindness to the history and
motivations of the Glenists, prejudices towards Erdogan, and entrenched views of puritanical
democracy could not see the wood for the trees. The result was that their immediate instinct
was to do everything but condemn the coup makers or help bring them to justice. In that gap
and context, Erdogan has no choice but to pursue alone, with the Turkish peoples support, a
policy of purging Glenists within the deep state. But he must do so whilst protecting cultural
democracy, which means Erdogan must take care to balance authoritarian actions with the
cultural democracy his government is trying to save.
We must help Turkey at its moment of crisis rather than sit back and do nothing. We must
develop a better understanding of authoritarianism with cultural democracy and bring justice
down hard on coup makers - creating a real global deterrent at the same time. USA should
not pursue the extradition bilateral in respect of Glen begrudgingly by the letter of the law,
but because it wants to for all the right reasons, because it understands the situation and
because it knows it pragmatically must embrace cultural democracy overseas if it is to justify
its actions and present a coherent strategy domestically and internationally. If the USA has
doubts about the extent to which Glen will receive a fair trial in Turkey, it should obtain the
appropriate diplomatic assurances, put monitoring arrangements in place or propose a third

country option. [None of these things have been heard beyond the mantra of show us the
evidence.]

Erdogan too must see that he needs to evolve as much as the West. He needs to demonstrate
that authoritarian cultural democracy works and is worthy of support. He must see that he
needs friends abroad more than ever. The Turkish president has only one road to travel. But
we need to understand the inherent differences and difficulties of a road that traverses east
and west through the Bosporus crossroads of the world. We need patience and understanding.
But at the same time Turkey needs to better explain and present its unique troubles to the
rest of the world so we can better understand its positioning. The president would do well to
start down that journey through better international messaging and by opening new avenues
for change. The coup has naturally stimulated such a repositioning, recalibration, and change.
Erdogan the man, the indefatigable domestic politician, and Erdogan the pragmatic president
will readily see that both will have to make this journey.
For all these reasons, and if East and West can come to grips with the new world order,
Turkey currently stands its best chance in years of getting back to its one nation roots and
resolving issues that have plagued it for years. Lets hope Boris, the man and what he stands
for, understands this and embraces this opportunity as much as he enthusiastically embraced
Turkish washing machines on his recent trip to Ankara. Our relationship with Turkey needs
everything thrown into now, including other domestic equipment such as the kitchen sink.