Turkish Model Not for Iran
by Vahid Isabeigi

Source: New California Media Online
Published in Iran Today on Jul 01, 2002

After September 11, the United States and U.S. media including Time Magazine and even some in Iran are extolling Turkey as an exemplary model for all the Muslim Countries to achieve democracy and economical prosperity.

The reality is that the Turks are trying hard to conceal the imperfections in their government. Turkey is, in fact, on the brink of a large-scale convulsion.

What has Turkey gained since the founding of modern nation by Ataturk in 1923?

Turkey suffers trying to look European with a population largely uneducated and poor. Turks were supposedly granted democracy in 1923, but the government has been castigated for notorious human rights violations of its own citizens.

Attempts to industrialize the country produced little apart from textiles. Despite the steady aid from European countries and U.S., the Turkish economy has always been stagnant and riddled with corruption. Except for a few years during the presidency of Turgut Ozal, Turkey has never seen stability. The recent economic havoc, marked by a minus 9 percent growth rate indicates the state of the economy.

If the revolution hadn't occurred in Iran, the Turkish economy would be even worse as the West wouldn't have shifted from Iran with Turkey benefiting from European and American investments. That indicates that without aid, Turkey would be in a much worse plight than it is in now.

There was a time that the Shah of Iran imported some of the changes employed in the policy of Ataturk. Among the Shah’s most controversial moves was to abolish the hejaab or head covering overnight, a brazen act unpopular with Iranians. In fact, this unjustifiable act impelled thousands of Iranian women, both secular and religious, to take to the streets to demonstrate their disapproval.

What exactly went wrong? Why did this act trigger such an unprecedented amount of discord? The answer lies in the nature of this resolution. Both leaders, the Shah and Ataturk, were unfamiliar with their societies and were also of the opinion that changes could be introduced by means of force. For years, Turkey and Iran systematically suppressed its devout citizens.

Ataturk also abolished the Arabic Script in favor of the Latin alphabet under the pretext that it would improve the literacy rate and help integrate Turkey into the European community. Yet, few Turks speak English fluently today and the average Turkish citizen knows little of European societies apart from the fact that Turkish workers are despised in Europe.

However, after a period of 70 years, when we compare the literacy rates of both Iran and Turkey, the literacy rates are 80 percent and 85 percent respectively, a mere 5 percent difference. Iran has managed to improve its rate to 80 percent without the hassle.

In fact, a majority of the cultural changes made in the Turkey were intended to move the country closer to Europe by totally erasing the past of the country for which Turks still retain great pride despite paradoxically renouncing it.

But in the more than 70 years since Ataturk, there still hasn't been an iota of rapprochement with the European Countries, nor has the country been profoundly Westernized. As a matter of fact, the country has been plunged into a cultural darkness with a populace unfamiliar with their own culture and identity.

Iran was more fortunate as Iranian scholars successfully argued that losing the current alphabet would denigrate Iran’s linguistic and literary heritage.

In 1979 Iranians staged an Islamic revolution, which hasn’t lived up to our expectations, ironically resulting in the spread of secular beliefs despite domination of the government by Islamic fundamentalist .

By contrast, fundamentalism is increasing in popularity in Turkey today. Forcible decrees made by leaders not endorsed by the people create civil strife and division.

Based on economical, social, and political indicators, the Turkish model has proved ill-suited since it underestimated the needs of its populace.

Hence, Iran would be well advised to reject the Turkish Model. How then should Iran slake its thirst for secularism and democracy? One should bear in mind that secularism doesn't require you to become culturally blind. In fact, it is possible to acquire secular democracy and retain the splendorous facets of our Iranian Culture. We Iranians should pursue our own Iranian version of a secular system and reject the Turkish Model.