The book Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds, written by a leading New-York Times journalist, Stephen Kinzer, explores cultural and political situation in modern Turkey. It should be pointed out that the author has always paid special attention to Islamic countries and their relations with the Western world. This work gives deep insights into the life of contemporary Turkish society, and particularly, the struggle between modernity and conservatism, Eastern political tradition and its Western counterpart. The main argument, which the writer advances, is that Turks can easily become one of the most developed nations if they manage to attain equilibrium between the modernity, and their cultural heritage.
Crescent and Star should not be regarded only as a scholarly work, because it is full of personal comments, in which Stephen Kinzer expresses his opinion about the way of life in the country and its traditions. In addition, one should bear in mind that the author has spent a considerable amount of time in Turkey; therefore, he is well aware of political atmosphere in this region. Yet, it is worth mentioning, occasionally, he looks at Turkish society from a pro-western point of view, which may sometimes lead to bias or even prejudice.
Overall, this book is aimed at breaking stereotypes about Turks. The major problem is that even now at the beginning of the twenty-fist century, many Western-Europeans or Americans regard Turkey and its people with apprehension. The author says that for nearly eight centuries, the word Turk, has been used as an insult, or a label to denote a wild savage, who should be isolated from other people (Kinzer, p 233). It seems that Stephen Kinzer has achieved the goal; he set, namely, to show that this nation is perfectly capable of achieving political and economic stability. His book represents not only a thorough analysis of a political observer; it also describes life and habits of average Turkish citizens, their traditions, likings and disliking. Common myths about Turks and their lifestyles have been dispelled in this work.
The author finds a perfect way to describe the situation in the country; he says at this moment, Turkey is a “synthesis of modernity and religious conservatism” (Kinzer, p 60). In this respect, we need to say, that the author does not consider Islamic tradition in the country as an obstacle to democratization. On the contrary, he is firmly convinced that religion can act as a unifying factor or stimulus. However, he is afraid of religious intolerance and Islamic fundamentalism, which can ruin the achievements of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, whom Stephen Kinzer definitely considers a very prominent personality. In his belief, fundamentalism or strict observance of religious principles can only hinder the countrys progress, because it will make Turkey more occlusive and less tolerant of external influences (Kinzer, p 71). Overall, Turkish Islam is very interesting phenomenon, which definitely requires very close examination.
For this purpose, we may draw parallels between this book and the work of other scholar, Hakan Yavuz, who also argues that under certain circumstances, Islam can even boost the process of democratization in Turkey. Nevertheless, there are certain controversies between these two authors. For instance, Stephen Kinzer describes Ottoman Empire as something backward or medieval. Probably, this is the main reason why many scholars say that the journalist has been slightly superficial in his treatment of this issue. First, this empire has always been one of the world superpowers and, secondly, its legacy it is still very palpable in Turkey.
On the whole, one may say that westerners should not forget that the way to democratic political system is long and arduous and many countries (including the United State or the United Kingdom) are passing through the formative stage even now. Democratization is a constant process that takes much time and effort and we cannot forger about it, while discussing the situation in modern Turkey. It appears that this slightly biased attitude is the only drawback of Stephen Kinzers book. Moreover, he places special emphasis on such concept as religious conservatism, believing that Muslim tradition in Turkey has not undergone any significant change. Such argument can be easily disputed, for example, according to Hakan Yavuz, Turkish Islam should no longer be associated with the fear of modernity. In his opinion, in the course of the twentieth century, it has become more open and less dogmatic.
Therefore, such formulation as religious conservatism is no longer applicable. In fact, in comparison with other Islamic countries, Turkish Muslims no longer take controversial teachings of Mullahs for granted. Every statement, every indisputable truth can be questioned and sometimes even refuted. Probably, one should take into consideration that any religion is not static but dynamic; it is inclined to evolve with time passing. Additionally, it can efficiently interact with other religions. Certainly, one has to admit that the religious atmosphere in many Muslim countries is still quite tense, but it is not permissible to say that Islam may not co-exist with other confessions. It seems that this is the only myth, which Stephen Kinzer has not dissipated.
Nonetheless, one should not think that the author’s views on Turley and it political and cultural future, are pessimistic. On the contrary, he believes that this country is almost bound to become a full member of western European community. Furthermore, according to him, the country has yet to fulfill its potential. Apart from that, he is firmly convinced that Turkey is the only country, which can possibly prove that Islamic tradition and democratic political system are compatible with one another (Kinzer, 72).
The famous journalist predicts the dynamics of ethnical relations in Turkey. He believes that the government should celebrate cultural diversity of this country. He says that Turkish culture has always been “vigorous, cosmopolitan and diverse” (Kinzer, p 107). Certainly, Stephen Kinzer does not forget all the complexity of ethnical question in Turkey, like for instance Kurdish separatism; however, he says that two ethnic groups can efficiently interact with one another.
The author pays extra attention to the process of democratization in Turkey and its peculiarities. In his opinion, it should not be regarded as pure imitation of Western political tradition, culture and the way of life. It seems that many countries have taken such course, but it led to rather detrimental results, like for instance the erasure of their own traditions and customs. The famous journalist says that it is necessary to weave Western political principles into Turkish societies. However, it does mean that Turks should only emulate these principles without questioning them, because otherwise it may result in the loss of the countrys cultural heritage and some of its positive aspects.
According to Stephen Kinzer, the reforms, carried out by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and his followers, were just the first step to build a secular society in Turkey, but they are far from being completed. Moreover, he believes that some aspects or principles of Kemalism should be reconsidered. He says that “not a single one of Ataturks sweeping reforms would have been approved in a plebiscite” (direct vote or expression of public opinion on questions of national importance (Kinzer, p 10). Even now many political leaders in Turkey believe that plebiscite is something dangerous or alien to the country, which is certainly a common misconception. At first glance, one may even conclude, that Turkish government is afraid of the nation, itself, believing that Turkish people are utterly unpredictable and democracy can give rise to some social catastrophe.
The author believes that society in Turkey is witnessing a very curious paradox, which is certainly not unprecedented. The major problem is that people are “thirsty for democracy”, whereas the government is very reluctant to quench their thirst. From their point of view, the nation is not mature for democracy in its full sense (Kinzer,10). Although, it is not explicitly stated by the scholar, his book suggests that such situation can cause the fall of the government, itself. His views are supported by other scholars, for instance, Hakan Yuvuz argues that Kemalism has become obsolete. Naturally, Kemal Ataturk laid the foundations of a secular society in Turkey, but, for a considerable amount of time the government, was too afraid of religious insurgence, and practically turned the state into a military rule, which is just other form of totalitarian regime.
According to Stephen Kinzer, any government, which claims to be democratic, must first acknowledge false deeds of its predecessor. In particular, the journalist mentions human rights abuse, especially, if we are speaking about Kurds, and oppressive measures, aimed against them. The thing is that even now many Turkish politicians state, that Western observers exaggerate the problem and that Kurds have never been repressed. Stephen Kinzer is quite right in his treatment of this issue because no country can come to democracy or build modern society, until it does not amend the mistakes of the past.
While speaking about economic development of the country Stephen Kinzer mostly deals with its transition from rural to urban style. He describes it in the following way. “Muddy villages have become bustling cities” (Kinzer, p 10). Ataturks reforms drastically changed Turkish political and geographical landscapes. Nevertheless, the journalist mentions that this change from rural to urban economy is far from being complete.
Therefore, it is possible for us to arrive at the conclusion that Stephen Kinzers book Star and Crescent provides a thorough analysis of political situation in modern Turkey. The author gives compelling evidence, suggesting that the country is very likely to obtain the status of a leading European state, which is based on the principles of tolerance and democracy. As regard’s the drawbacks of this book, we should mention Kinzers rather biased attitude towards Turkey’s historical past and his views on Islam, namely, the religious conservatism. As it has been noted earlier such approach to Turkish religious tradition is not quite acceptable. Overall, the famous journalist has managed to present a very vivid and realistic description of the country with its positive and negative aspects.
Bibliography
M. Hakan Yavuz. Islamic Political Identity in Turkey. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Stephen Kinzer. Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds. Paperback, 2008.