Transcript

Host: President George W. Bush says that both Indonesia and Turkey are crucial countries in the fight against Islamist terrorism. Indonesia is the world’s most populous majority-Muslim nation. Bombings in Jakarta and the island of Bali revealed the growth of radical Islamic groups among Indonesia’s traditionally moderate Muslims. Even so, President Bush says that Indonesia is an example of how democracy and modernization can provide an alternative to extremism.

Turkey stands between East and West: a majority-Muslim country that has long been thought of as part of Europe. Turkey has been held up as an example that Western democracy and modernity are not inconsistent with Islam. The United States continues to support the integration of Turkey into the European Union. And President George W. Bush says that the desire of the U-S is “to help people who care about a peaceful future reject radicalism and extremism.”

What is the future of political Islam in Indonesia and Turkey? And what impact can U-S policy have on the direction Indonesians and Turks choose for their countries? I’ll ask my guests: Sadanand Dhume, who is Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the Asia Society in Washington, and author of a forthcoming book on radical Islam in Indonesia; Omer Taspinar, director of the U-S/Turkey Project at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.; and joining us by phone from Tracy’s Landing in Maryland, Leslie Campbell, regional director for the Middle East and North Africa at the National Democratic Institute. Welcome and thanks for joining us today.

Sadanand Dhume, tell us a little bit about what the state of Islam is in Indonesia – how it’s practiced and has it been changing?

Dhume: Well, you see, traditionally Indonesian Islam was a bit of an outlier. The religion came to the country very late. And as the anthropologist Clifford Geertz once famously said, that in Indonesia Islam did not construct a civilization, it appropriated one. There was a very large pre-existing Hindu-Buddhist civilization which gave them their architecture, their music, their dance and so on and so forth. And traditionally, when people talked about Indonesia, they always saw it as the most syncratic, most moderate, most tolerant form of Islam. The Javanese especially were famous for having a very easy-going attitude towards the faith. What we’ve seen over the last thirty years, though, is in some ways the same as what we’ve seen elsewhere in the Islamic world. You’ve had a hardening of practice, but you’ve also had the emergence of Islamist politics. And I believe both of these things have gone hand in hand.

Host: Omer Taspinar, in Turkey there is a very different situation, where you’ve had a country that had a very strict secular agenda for much of the Twentieth Century; and a push toward democracy in Turkey has opened up greater room for the practice of Islam. How has that affected the way Islam has traditionally been practiced in Turkey?

Taspinar: Turks would like to think that it is still a very secular country. You’re right in the sense that since the end of the Cold War, I don’t think that left wing or right wing politics really matter in Turkey anymore. Identities – civilizational, religious, national identies – have been emerging. And in that sense we have a resurgence of Islam. You have more women wearing the headscarf in Turkey now. You have Islamic politics, but also national politics. You have a polarization in Turkey between Turkish nationalists and Kurdish nationalists and also religious identity – Muslim versus secular. So this is a country right now that reflects its geographical situation on the map, which is really at the crossroads of secularism, Islam, West, East. Turkish nationalism, Kurdish nationalism. It is in flux, an identity very much in flux.

Host: Les Campbell, are you there by phone?

Campbell: Yes I am.

Host: What’s your sense of how democracy is affecting and being affected by Islam in both Indonesia and Turkey?

Campbell: I think that the trends that the two gentlemen just described exist also throughout the Arab Middle East, which is where I work primarily. In the sense that countries – I’ll give you an example, Morocco – where Islam was not necessarily the driver of public life, was not the driver of political life, is having to confront very strong Islamist movements. And it’s turning out that secular politicians, secular leaders are starting to wonder what their place is within their society and within their politics. And Morocco may be one of the better examples. I think we all know what’s happened in places like Saudi Arabia, where there’s increasing extremism and so on. So, the same questions exist in the Arab world as have been described in Turkey and Indonesia. Unfortunately I think we all perceive, and it’s probably the case, that the hardening of practice, the growth of extremism, political Islam which is very anti-Western, anti-modernization, seems to emanate primarily from the Arab countries.

Host: Sadanand Dhume, have the politics of the Arab world had a significant impact on the hardening of practice in Indonesia?

Dhume: Absolutely. And, more than politics, I think that sort of, one of the things you see is that the flows of ideology, the flows of idea, tend to be very one-way. And they’re from the center to the periphery. And the center, as it’s defined here, is really the Arab world. So, what happens then is that you have hard-line ideologues, people like Sayyid Qutb, and you have their books being read in translation on Indonesian university campuses. Unfortunately, you don’t see the same effect the other way around. So you don’t have, for example, Indonesian moderate Muslims have their work translated into Arabic and being picked up on the streets of Cairo. It’s a one-way flow, and I think Indonesia has frankly been the loser because of that one-way flow, because it’s come from a part of the world which is extremely troubled in this regard.

Host: Omer Taspinar, this has been with Turkey one of the points made over and over again – Turkey as an example of a moderate Muslim nation that might set a direction that might influence the Arab world. And yet we see in Indonesia really a one-way street. Has there been a one-way street also in Turkey, or does Turkey feel that it has influence on the ideas and politics of the Middle East?

Taspinar: I think that Turkey is increasingly having some influence on the politics of the Middle East, but not because of its secular identity. I think that Islamic political parties in the Middle East – especially not-very-radical ones, the more moderate ones, such as in Morocco the Justice and Development Party or the Muslim Brothers in Egypt – are looking at Turkey as a model, not because of the [Mustafa Kemal] Atatürk legacy, secular legacy, of Turkey but because it is a genuinely democratic country where actually an Islamic political party can come to power, and can find a way to coexist with the staunchly secularist military of the country. And in the meantime there is a burgeoning civil society – a free press, a private sector-oriented economy. So in that sense there are good reasons why the Arab world, especially moderate Muslims in the Arab world, are looking at Turkey as a model, a good balance of secularism, democracy and overall private sector economics – capitalism.

Host: Les Campbell?

Campbell: I think that that is true – a few years ago, I think Turkey had minimal influence on the Arab world, but it does have more influence right now. And I think it is correct that some Arab political actors, political parties, are looking at Turkey as a potential model. On the other hand, there has been some criticism of the party in power and the government in Turkey that they are becoming maybe a little bit, slightly more radical. One example is that a few months ago Turkey hosted a visit by Hamas. And I know that that was held up by a number of the Islamic parties in the Arab world as a sign that the Turkish government and the Turkish ruling party was more open to Hamas than many other Western countries – certainly more open than Europe. So, Turkey, its Islamic politics have also caused some concern. But I think it’s true that having a party which has a religious reference, a religious basis, in power in Turkey has been perceived quite positively in the Arab world and could be emulated in places like Morocco, as was mentioned.

Host: Omer Taspinar, on this question of Islamic politics: Much of the argument from the West has been that democracy would moderate Islam. How has that played out in Turkey?

Taspinar: I think beautifully. The fact that Islamists can come to power in Turkey has moderated them. Because, the myth that “Islam is the solution” is very easy to sustain when you are constantly in opposition, when you are facing an authoritarian regime.

Host: This is the motto of the Islamists, that “Islam is the solution.”

Taspinar: Yes. The Muslim Brothers, for instance, in Egypt have this motto, and there is this myth that political Islam can solve everything. But once it comes to power – actually we have seen it in Iran – there is disenchantment coming from the society, because Islamists do not have a magical solution for picking up the garbage on the street, for making the trains run on time, for delivering goods and services. They’re less corrupt – that’s their main ticket to power. They can basically claim that they’re less corrupt than some of the secularist parties. But actually when they come to power, they have to actually deal with the daily realities of governance, and that, to a great degree moderates them.

Host: Sadanand Dhume, yes?

Dhume: I couldn’t agree less. I feel that there is little evidence to show that either Hamas or Hezbollah, for example, have been moderated. I feel that the cost that you have to pay – say, the cost that Iran has paid, of a quarter-century of oppression before people get the message that, well, this ideology doesn’t really work – may be a cost that many societies consider too high. And though I’m not an expert on Turkey, I believe that you could make the argument that it is secularism and the ability of the government to push back that has moderated Turkish Islamists more than democracy.

Host: What do you think about that Omer Taspinar?

Taspinar: The fact that, when you have a strong state, the Islamists actually have to position themselves vis-à-vis the state. For instance, the fact that Turkey has a strong and very staunchly secularist military of course moderates Islam. Yet, if that kind of Islam was perpetually in opposition – if they had no chances of coming to power, I think there would be constant radicalization of Islamists, as we see in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt. These are very authoritarian states, where the mosque is the only place where Islamists can go and engage in politics. And you have an Islamization and radicalization of dissent simply because of the authoritarian dynamics in these countries.

Host: Les Campbell?

Campbell: If I can jump in, I think that good points are being made by both in the sense that I think we don’t want to be naïve and assume that just by allowing Islamist parties to participate that they will all of a sudden become moderate. I don’t think it quite works that way. But we know for sure that when they’re not allowed to participate they become very, very strong. And the strength is a false one. So I think the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, in Egypt looks extremely strong at the moment, but they would not look as strong were they more part of the mainstream. Because I think it’s true that once they are forced to make decisions – even if not in full government, just for example as the heads of committees in parliament – I think they find that the world is more complicated, and they have to moderate a bit. So I think that it’s true that we shouldn’t imagine that the Islamist parties will be immediately tamed by one shot at government. They won’t. But on the other hand, there’s no realistic option for keeping them out, because they end up having a false popularity based on looking like they are a good way of protesting the status quo – whether that’s domestic policies or people’s views of the U-S, for example. So I think we have to find a way to get them into politics.

Host: Sadanand, how has that played out in Indonesia, where you’ve had a democracy getting going, and at the same time, real change in the nature of Islam in Indonesia?

Dhume: My point is not to say that they should be kept out and you shouldn’t be allowed to vote for them. My point – and the Indonesian case really underlines this in many ways – is that you need to have some other force in society that’s willing to be, play the role of an umpire or a neutral broker. If you don’t have that, because Islamists are not willing to play by the rules, they are willing to change the face of society very, very rapidly. And then societies cannot recover. But to get to your point about Indonesia, you know on the one hand you have a democracy and you had a free presidential election, and from that point of view things have worked out well. On the other hand, if you are a minority today, you have never been as unsafe. If you want to go and pray in your church or in your temple, you have never been as unsafe in the last twenty years as you are today, because what could happen is that a mob could decide that your church was, for example, illegally constructed and they could come and shut it down, and there is no authority that is willing to take them on. So we have to recognize the reality of this ideology and very often that means that you need to have some other force that is able to counter the Islamists so that there is a level playing field so that they don’t swamp it.

Host: Omer Taspinar, let’s talk a little bit about one of the other big issues for Turkey, which has been the European Union and the issue of whether Turkey is going to become part of the European Union. How do Turks feel about it? What’s the position of Europe at this point? And to what extent does the question of political Islam determine how this is going to play out?

Taspinar: Actually, political Islam started to play a major role in Turkey’s wishes to become part of the European Union. This political party which is currently governing Turkey -- I think we can label it as a moderate Islamic political party – has done more than all the previous governments of Turkey in terms of assuring that Turkey starts accession negotiations with the E-U. In that sense they have seen their future as an Islamic political party in the E-U, and that debunks to a certain degree, the myth that Turkey is going Islamist, that somehow Turkey will be another Iran or Saudi Arabia. In that sense, Turkey has very interesting dynamics. Yet the problem right now is with Europe. Europe is in crisis. Europe is in crisis economically, politically, socially. They don’t know how to deal with the Muslim minorities that they have. They don’t know how to deal with some of the major economic problems, such as unemployment, and they don’t want more migration coming from a Muslim country such as Turkey, which has seventy-five million people and quite a high level of unemployment. In that sense there is a reluctance in the E-U to embrace Turkey. And the mirror image is that now there is this sense of resentment toward the European Union in Turkey. Because Turkey, we should remember, after all, comes from the Ottoman Empire and is a very proud nation. It doesn’t want to be treated as a second-class country, doesn’t want a “privileged partnership,” the way the Germans and the French are trying to convince Turkey.

Host: “Privileged partnership” being something less than full membership.”

Taspinar: Yes, which sounds neither as a privilege nor as a partnership to Turks. They are really angry when they hear this term – they feel that this is discrimination. And instead of becoming second-class Europeans, most Turks would prefer to be first-class Muslims, or a first-class regional power.

Host: Les Campbell, where is the U-S on the question of the European Union? The U-S keeps saying they are in favor of Turkish integration into the E-U. How much influence can the U-S have on that question?

Campbell: I think its influence is probably minimal. The U-S is in favor, because, I think, as we’ve been discussing, the U-S sees Turkey as a potential model for much of the Middle East and for many other majority-Muslim countries. But on the other hand, there is no doubt that Europe sees Turkey as a cultural/social/migrant issue, and I think that those issues don’t affect the U-S. So I think that U-S views on the integration of Turkey are not going to be that influential. But I think that its important that the U-S continues to be an ally. I think that this whole question of world perception of Turkey and its government is becoming increasingly dominant. I returned from Europe not long ago where this question was being discussed and it’s an amazingly emotional question and it doesn’t divide on traditional Left-Right lines. People from both sides of the political spectrum have varied views on Turkey. So it’s a question that will remain for a while.

Host: Sadanand Dhume, we were just talking about U-S policy with regard to Turkey and the E-U. With regard to Indonesia, is what the U-S decides to do going to have much impact on how Indonesia decides what sort of country it’s going to be, what kind of future it’s going to play out, and what sort of Islam is practiced in Indonesia?

Dhume: The U-S decision is going to have a profound impact. It obviously cannot determine things because this is a large country with its own [cultural and political] forces. But I think the U-S decision on what moderate Islam looks like -- What is moderate Islam? How do we define it? – and the U-S decision on how we think Indonesia ought to look in 2020, what conception of it is there, is going to make a very big difference. Because you’re up against a set of forces that have a very clear idea. It’s a crude idea, it’s a simple-minded idea, it’s a Wahhabi Islamist idea, but it is a clear idea. They know what their end goal is. And I think the only way to stop that end goal from becoming a reality, is by having a clear sense of what the alternative end goal. And I believe that is secular democracy where there is room for Islamists to participate, but certainly one where their threat is kept in mind.

Host: Omer Taspinar, on that same question in Turkey: Does U-S policy, is it going to be important for how Turks decide what sort of country they want to be and what sort of society they want to be?

Taspinar: Extremely important. Perhaps one difference with Indonesia is that Turkey has borders with Iraq. And chaos – the fiasco in Iraq – has major implications for Turkey’s own internal politics, especially the Kurdish question. Let’s remember that Turkey has fifteen- to twenty-million Kurds. There is a strong Kurdish minority. Iraq has only four- to five-million Kurds. So the Kurdish question is an existential matter for Turkey. If Iraq disintegrates, and there is a Kurdish state independently emerging in the North, that will have major implications for Turkey. And only if Turkey manages to stay on the European Union track, I think Turkish democracy can survive. Because the Kurds in Turkey want a more multi-cultural Turkey. They want cultural rights, political rights, economic rights, and especially cultural rights – they want to speak their language. And a Turkey which is on track to become a member of the European Union would accommodate the Kurds. But if not, it could potentially unravel into a civil war in Turkey.

Host: I’m afraid that’s going to have to be the last word. We’re out of time for today. But I’d like to thank my guests: Sadanand Dhume of the Asia Society in Washington, and author of a forthcoming book on radical Islam in Indonesia; Omer Taspinar of the Brookings Institution in Washington; and joining us by phone from Tracy’s Landing in Maryland, Leslie Campbell of the National Democratic Institute. Before we go, I'd like to invite you to send us your questions or comments. You can reach us through our Web site at w-w-w-dot-v-o-a-news-dot-com-slash-ontheline. For On the Line, I'm Eric Felten.