2007 is the year of elections in Turkey. However, before the Turks go to the polls in the general election where the entire assembly, along with the Prime Minister-ship is up for grabs, the current assembly will select a new President first. The current President's term is up after seven years.
There have been long debates ranging from early general elections for a more current representation in picking the President, to whom not to nominate, or even changing the constitution to allow for a 'public' election of the President.
Due to all of this indecisiveness, but more so as a result of the turn of events over the past few years, the country is desperately in need of a unifying figure who will not further polarize the already-divided nation.
I nominate Orhan Pamuk, the recent Nobel Prize winner as that person. His global popularity, along with his mastery of English, and his American experience makes him a perfect candidate for starters.
His stand on the opening of dialogue between the hostile parties of decades old yet unresolved issues, and his belief that this is the only way to heal old wounds, is sure to win him a future Nobel Peace Prize if he succeeds.
In addition, he would satisfy the 'requirements' of the popular push for openness, and debate and resolution, so fashionable of late by the EU and others (the truth is - almost every one else.) At a minimum, he would be successful in the elimination of the sole excuse for years of inaction and reaction and blame of Turkey by these same parties. The ball would be in their court for sure as a result. No more pointing fingers and lame excuses of holding Turkey accountable for rejecting the willingness to come to the table.
Furthermore, he would definitely be a favorite of the secular establishment, as well as the liberals. And given the choice between 'radical' theologians masquerading as politicians, as the military believes, and Mr. Pamuk, even with his 'Armenian' and 'Kurd' related baggage, the general (no pun intended) consensus would yield toward the option of reasonable rationale.
What about the Islamists? The 'modern' or 'moderate' Turkish Islam followers would compromise given the alternative (of possibly a military intervention if, God forbid, the first lady was to not remove her lifelong membership to the 'headscarf' commitment, even as part of her religious ideals and freedom.) Too much negative commentary would ensue as a result of either side 'winning,' even if temporarily.
The 'radical' Muslims are never going to approve anyone short of subscribing to the 'mullah weekly' anyway. At least they would cherish the notion that Mr. Pamuk would make the 'status quo' as uncomfortable as anyone else they would have as an alternative. And for that purpose alone, to satisfy their own aspirations, they wouldn't mind 'uniting' with other 'controversial' subscribers to help their own survival and expansion. Many examples of this fact are on record.
Besides, as I mentioned in my previous post, what could even excite the overwhelming majority of Turks, and shock some of his new found admirers among the 'Islam-hating' community, as well as those who equate anti-Turkish sentiments with anti-Islam as one and the same, would be Pamuk's real position and intent, not to paint Turkey as guilty of any crime, but his honest yearning to eliminate the unwillingness for discussion of what really happened.
When it comes to Islam, Pamuk's following comments may reveal a different assumption on our part, yet much more aligned with how we really feel. "I'm not interested in a blanket condemnation of all Islamists as evil, as is often the case in the West," he told a German interviewer last year. "At the same time, I am critical of the Islamist perception of the secularists as undignified imitators of the loathed West. I want to destroy the clichés cultivated by both sides. This is what I perceive as the task of a political novel."
He has even published an article titled, "It is not Islam or poverty that succors terrorism, but the failure to be heard." And more recently Pamuk stated, "Islam is not equivalent to terrorism. If a western terrorist group throws a bomb, democracy is not considered to be responsible for this. In the Muslim world, there exists a growing fury for all wars of recent times. The people are not angry at the idea of the West, but the idea of war."
Very Presidential . . . and more unifying than we think!
Technorati Tags: turk, turkey, turkish, france, french, prime minister, president, election, vote, america, american, politician, terror, terrorist, democracy, liberty, freedom, expression, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, genocide, legislation, holocaust, religion, politics, political, armenia, armenian, kurd, europe, eu, reform, islam, muslim, orhan pamuk, pamuk, nobel, literature, news
