Reflexionen, Kommentare und andere Zustände der Welt
On this series: This blog post belongs to a series under the title and leading question „Can networks of local governments challenge the rise of cross-border neo-populism?“. The complete series are my contribution to an edited volume by Dr. Agata Rogoś, postdoctoral research fellow at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Agata’s Edited volume’s working title is „Permeability... Continue Reading →
Die Türkei ist ein zentralisierter Staat mit strengen vertikalen Hierarchien, die auf der ersten Verfassung von 1982 aufbauen, nachdem in Folge des Militärputsches von 1980 der politische Prozess des Landes zwei Jahre weitgehend eingefroren worden war. Die institutionellen Strukturen der letzten vier Jahrzehnte tragen die erkennbaren Spuren der Militärjunta -- und in der Tat, wie Ayşe Gül Altınay in ihrem bahnbrechenden Buch The Myth of the Military Nation (Altınay 2004) nachgezeichnet hatte, reichen die starken militaristischen Vermächtnisse in der Türkei bis in die späte osmanische Zeit, in die preußisch-osmanische Zusammenarbeit und die Anfänge der Republik zurück. Besonders aus Sicht vieler türkischer Perspektiven führte das lang anhaltende Intermezzo erfolgloser Versuche der Annäherung an den sogenannten Acquis Communautaire der EU, die in den 1990er Jahren an Fahrt aufnahmen, zu weit verbreiteter Frustration und Enttäuschung. Das türkische Anliegen einer Vollmitgliedschaft in der EU wurde wiederholt (und aus unterschiedlichen Gründen) zurückgewiesen. Dabei spielen der stockende Demokratisierungsprozess, die anhaltenden Verletzungen der Menschenrechte, der ungelöste Konflikt mit dem EU-Staat Zypern -- und nicht zuletzt der Kurdenkonflikt und die Leugnung des Völkermords an den Armeniern eine große Rolle. Darüber hinaus spielten auf der Bühne der öffentlichen Meinungen jedoch immer wieder auch Fragen der Identität, (Nicht-)Zugehörigkeit und Ausgrenzung eine Rolle, ob auf europäischer oder türkischer Seite -- wenn etwa die Europäizität der Türkei ganz in Frage gestellt wurde, oder türkische Politiker die EU als christlichen Club bezeichneten (Terzi 2012; "Die Türkei und die EU 2018"). Der lange Schatten all dieser Konflikte schwingt in der hierarchischen Verflechtung der territorial-administrativen Strukturen der Türkei mit -- und auch in der Art und Weise, wie die Beziehungen zu den Gemeinden auf dem Balkan hergestellt werden.
Vorbemerkung: Dieser Blogbeitrag gehört zu einer Serie unter dem Titel und der Leitfrage “Können Netzwerke von Kommunalverwaltungen den Aufstieg des grenzüberschreitenden Neopopulismus herausfordern?” Die komplette Serie ist mein Beitrag zu einem Sammelband von Dr. Agata Rogoś, Postdoc-Stipendiatin an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Der Arbeitstitel des von Agata herausgegebenen, englischsprachigen Bandes lautet “Permeability of dispossession /... Continue Reading →
Im Gegensatz zur Fülle von Studien zur Öffentlichen Diplomatie und zu Populismus im Allgemeinen gibt es bisher keine Studien zum Neopopulismus im bosniakisch-türkischen Kontext, wie er hier verstanden wird: Neopopulismus ist ein grenzüberschreitendes Phänomen, das mehr als eine nationale Öffentlichkeit anspricht. Um die relative Abwesenheit von Literatur zu diesem Thema zu erklären, sollte eine Sichtung ausgewählter Arbeiten zum Populismus hilfreich sein. Dabei behalte ich zwei Grundannahmen im Blick: Erstens kann (und sollte) der türkisch-bosniakische Neopopulismus, wie jede andere Form des zeitgenössischen Populismus, in einen viel breiteren, europäischen und sogar globalen Kontext des Aufstiegs illiberaler, populistischer Bewegungen eingeordnet werden. Dies ergibt sich allein schon aus der Tatsache, dass die medialisierte Öffentlichkeit in einem vorher nie da gewesenen Maß entgrenzt und kosmopolitisiert ist. Zweitens, und trotz der allgemeinen Probleme der Vagheit und des Dissenzes in den häufigsten Definitionen des Populismus (Vgl. Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017; Rosanvallon 2020), sollen die am häufigsten angenommenen Kernelemente des Populismus (Volk, Elite, Vox Populi, etc.) hervorgehoben werden, weil die Betrachtung dieser Begriffe helfen können, zu verstehen, warum das Konzept des Populismus sowohl eine passende, als auch problematische Kategorie in dem gegebenen, grenzüberschreitenden Kontext der Türkei und Bosnien ist -- und weshalb besser von Neopopulismus die Rede sein sollte, wenn beschrieben wird, was sich in diesem zunehmend entgrenzten Zwischenraum entfaltet.
Whether free iftar meals, collective circumcision ceremonies for Balkan boys by Turkish circumcisers (sünnet şölenleri), renovations and constructions of mosques, hammams, fountains, public squares, bridges or similar activities: Turkish public diplomats' activities are disproportionally often religiously embellished. Yet, these activities are not pursued solely for altruistic reasons or for „their ‘magical value’, which Mauss saw was 'still present in sadaqa’“, as some authors have interpreted other forms of gift exchange under Islamic auspices. The gift, as Mauss had it, involves and demands reciprocity. In the case of Turkish-Bosnian cross-border neo-populism, a „mixed economy“ is at play between AKP-governed, Turkish municipalities and their Bosnian counterparts: spiritual categories are distinctively present – while they are blended and traded together with the „hard currencies“ of the capitalist market of public opinions. This means that the gifted („the invested“, „the helped ones“) are expected to deliver, in return, to their donor with consent and supportive public opinions.
The Turkish ruling regime's problematic use of a vocabulary that appears to be identical with that of many Balkan post-migrants manifests in one of the goals of the AKP's „Vision 2023“ on its official homepage. There, a collective „we“ announces that „we will (re-)appropriate the reminiscences of our forefathers“ („Atayadigârlarımıza sahip çıkacağız”), with the historical Old Bridge of Mostar in the background. The same totemic language is applied on the homepage of TİKA, the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency: „Turkey appropriates the monuments of the Ottoman reminiscences in the Balkans“ (Türkiye Balkanlar'daki Osmanlı Yadigârı Eserlere Sahip Çıkıyor). In a similar vein, the reminiscence (yadigâr) is more frequently paraphrased by the notion of the „Ottoman heritage“ (Osmanlı Mirası): thus, figurative kinship relations to the Balkans (heritage) are constructed. This figurative kinship is also expressed in countless other public speech acts, where Bosniaks and Turks are regularly called siblings (kardeş) and relatives (akraba), regardless of their biographies. Similarly, Bosnia, Kosovo, or other places were often called „home“ or declared identical with Turkey by Turkish officials. These samples show that the understanding of the nation-state itself and its borders was widened by the AKP regime throughout the past years, characterized by the use of kinship-metaphores. Concomitantly, the existing and conflictuous questions of belonging, ownership, sovereignty and territoriality in the Western Balkans were even amplified.
As this example shows, being different from the others -- as Muhacir -- does not mean being other than Turkish: it rather means that there are one or more deep societal conflicts about the understanding how to be Turkish, and/or who determines what Turkish and Turkish culture would possibly be. I was told in practically every single interview with Bosniak Muhacirs (and their offspring) in Turkey what they perceive of as the most fundamental difference between themselves and 'the others': they would never -- down "to the seventh or ninth generation" -- ever marry their akraba (= relatives). Cousin marriage -- in the Arabic speaking Middle East described as bint 'amm marriage by anthropologists -- is in Turkey known as akraba evliliği. It is considered to be an eastern practice by Bosniak Muhacir people in Turkey, which corresponds to the fact that in the Balkans, cousin marriage is practically taboo and considered incestuous. Hence, the reactions of many Bosniak Muhacir people to the fact that some of their Anatolian compatriots practice it, often were expressed in extreme disgust. "Bunlar kültürsüz" -- they have no culture -- was often added as an explanatory comment. The importance of this societal conflict, where representatives of both sides can claim their own establishedness and the other side's outsiderness, should not be underestimated in the way how figurative kinship is established through sibling cities (kardeş şehir), either by representatives of the ruling party, or by Muhacir groups: even though representatives of both groups use the same kinship metaphores (like sibling / kardeş) and speak about culture (kültür), they may fundamentally disagree over the meaning and the role of their agnatic or figurative akraba (kinship) -- as the example of akraba evliliği shows. In the same vein, there are fundamental disagreements over the notion of culture, and the way how culture is brokered by official Turkish cultural centers and initiatives on the market of public opinions in the Balkans.
Although the exact number of Istanbulites is subject to discussions, official figures assume that approximately 16 million out of 84.711.239 million inhabitants of Turkey live in Istanbul, which makes up to 20 % of the total population. Together with 29 other Turkish cities (şehir), Istanbul is attributed the status of a metropolis (büyükşehir, literally: big city). As Istanbul comprises 39 districts (ilçe) with their own, respective municipal sub-governments (belediye), each presided by a mayor (belediyebaşkanı), the metropolitan government (büyükşehir belediyesi) of the whole metropolis is represented by the metropolitan mayor (büyükşehir belediyebaşkanı). Currently (January 2021), this position is filled by Ekrem İmamoğlu from the oppositional CHP (as initially mentioned).
The stress of the Ottoman past in the official Turkish actors' cultural initiatives is the reason why their activities have been classified cultural diplomacy from the very beginning of their visibility in the Balkans. The year 2009, when the first branch of the Yunus-Emre-Cultural Centers opened its doors in the Bosnian capital Sarajevo, can be seen as a first significant benchmark. However, Turkish culture and cultural diplomacy are not only promoted in direct and subtle ways by offical representatives of the Turkish state: from the point of view of soft power – which according to Joseph Nye needs to work subtly in order to be successful – the popularity of Turkish TV-series was (and still is) of enormous relevance. Especially the latter aspect implies that an understanding of the appeal of “Turkish culture” in the Balkans cannot solely be explained by studying the ruling regime's activities: much broader strata of the involved societies (e.g. TV consumers/prosumers in Bosnia and Turkey) and their various discoursive contexts are, as informal actors, involved in the process of cultural diplomacy.
Inkubator M e t a m o r φ 
Neueste Kommentare