The Impact of Modernity on Muslim Political Parties in Turkey Research Paper

Modernized countries have a higher standard of living, recourses, and social resources than non-modernized ones, despite many objections and reluctance to modernity. As a result, many non-Western academics and decision-makers work to modernize or unify their systems (Armajani). Since Weber famously stated that one of the significant conditions for the rise of Modernity was the ethics of austere Protestants, other religions, including Islam, are frequently regarded as lacking in these work values.¹ However, Islamic culture resists such change in the Muslim world since many Muslims see modernization as one of the world’s most terrible systems contributing to oppression and social injustice.

Islam does not always resist progress and Modernity, although Islamic cultures have remained constant and have not progressed as they ought to; this is primarily due to the Holy Qur’an doctrine not being fully comprehended and implemented.² A claim by the power classes in the Muslim world asserts that their cultures are Islamic. However, when one objectively examines these societies in light of the Qur’an’s values and directives, aside from some rituals, one finds it very difficult to consider the claims seriously after noticing such rites and traditions. As a result of modernization, the Islamic elites have attempted to create a political Islam based on anti-Western sentiment. Still, it has been a complete and utter failure, as seen in Turkey’s case. Turkish Islamism has criticized the country’s development model as being Western.

The majority of residents in Turkey are Muslims, and since the Turkish Republic’s formation, modernization has been a central pillar. After defeating the allied forces, Ataturk and his followers began implementing a severe modernization strategy known as secularization to eliminate Islam from Turkish politics.³ The main goal of such initiatives was to destabilize the radicalism of Islamic orthodoxy, which had come to represent Muslim Turkish society in general. As a result, numerous religious and political parties were abolished and deemed ineffective.

The Kemalist reform program was a thorough application of adaptationism to the Westernizing secularist strategy in modernizing the Islamic paradigm. Rather than reforming, the ancient political structures of Islamic government and society were gradually abolished (Powll 290). The ancient Islamic political parties were eliminated through a series of reforms over the next century, with the sultanate’s role removed in 1922 and the caliphates in 1924.⁴ The authorities assumed charge of political foundations immediately, abolished the official tariqat organizations, and took control of religious instruction from the traditional ulema.

Political organizations and parties, nonetheless, currently exist without question. One of the four critical pillars of democracy, political parties help expand it. They play such a vital role in a country’s development that they impact other development patterns. A significant degree of social mobility and the emergence of a new middle class with administrative and bureaucratic capitalist characteristics were the results of the administration’s modernization initiatives and economic and social reforms. This group’s political ambitions impacted political structures after the post-World War II building era, which consequently helped clear the way for developing political parties in future generations.⁵ Therefore, the emergence of the middle-income post-revolutionary has had various effects on political parties and politics. Such effects can be seen in areas including influencing the political structures of power, the middle class’s influence on political groups and parties, and efforts to change the political culture.

In 1950, Turkey shifted from a one-party to a multi-party system, universally recognized as a significant accomplishment. This gave the perception that democracy could emerge from tyranny and that society was modernizing. Such high hopes were suddenly shattered by the army invasion in May 1960 and, to some extent, by the country’s practices in the years before the revolution. Turkey, regarded as an example of development within a non-totalitarian context, now appeared to have lost its initial vigor and drive, seemingly veering off its course of political development and modernization.

The turning point in Turkish politics and modern society occurred on May 14, 1950, when the Democratic Party of Celal was elected president, and the Republican Party was driven into opposition.⁶ It initiated a brand-new method of choosing leaders that included social mobilization and increased political participation, which differed from their older Islamic techniques. The success of the Turkish venture into party democracy stands in contrast with political regimes in neighboring nations and the majority of the Third World.

Highly institutionalized political parties differentiate Turkey from other new democracies. The absence of civil society organizations in Turkey has made parties more critical of individuals, resulting from modernization. The political turbulence, party fragmentation, and ideological polarization characteristics of the Turkish political party system started to emerge. The middle Motherland Party garnered adequate support to form a government entirely on its own for a brief period in the 1980s.⁷ In the 1990s, party system fragmentation resurfaced to a much greater degree. Since 1991, Turkey has been governed by coalition governments.

Like many Turkish parties, the WP is extremely leader-oriented in its organization and internal political dynamics. Informed debate, divergent opinions, and robust leadership elections are not everyday party practices, but due to modernization, they have started being incorporated. The party officials only provide a restricted form of consultation in response to demands for intra-party democracy, which one cynical observer described as “the leader’s expression of his thoughts and the validation from the others by nodding without expressing a word.”⁸ The WP has also closely resembled the mass party model and escaped the organizational decline that afflicted the other parties.

The continuities and inconsistencies of the Turkish modernism crisis and victories Paradoxes and anomalies offer debates on Modernity on a wide range of topics. It highlights the presence of Modernity beyond the west and offers political sciences the option to investigate other modernization paths. Since the late imperial era and up till the present, there has been a conflicting between modernizing and industrializing the Turkish case. The Tanzimat period brought about reforms that permitted the Turkish polity to develop a range of civil, economic, judicial, educational, military, and political institutions while maintaining its allegiance to Islam. These indicated modernization’s growing influence and functioned as the foundation for the reforms that would define the 20th century.

Works Cited

Armajani, Jon. “Modern Islamist Movements.” 2011, Web.

“Islam and Politics around the World. Edited by John L.Esposito and Emad El‐DinShamin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. 237. Paperback., $21.95.” Religious Studies Review, vol. 45, no. 3, 2019, pp. 390–390., Web.

Powll, Russell. “Shari’a Politics: Islamic Law and Society in the Modern World. Edited by Robert W. Hefner. Indiana University PRESS2011. Pp. 344. $27.95. ISBN: 0-253-22310-5.”Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 28, no. 1, 2013, pp. 287–291., Web.

Footnotes

1. “Islam and Politics around the World. Edited by John L.Esposito and Emad El‐DinShamin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. 237. Paperback., $21.95.” Religious Studies Review, vol. 45, no. 3, 2019, pp. 390–390., Web.
2. John, pp. 237
3. Powll, Russell. “Shari’a Politics: Islamic Law and Society in the Modern World. Edited by Robert W. Hefner. Indiana University PRESS2011. Pp. 344. $27.95. ISBN: 0-253-22310-5.” Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 28, no. 1, 2013, pp. 287–291., Web.
4. Russell, pp 344
5. Rusell, Journal of Law and Religion
6. Rusell, Journal of Law and Religion
7. Rusell, Journal of Law and Religion
8. Armajani, Jon. “Modern Islamist Movements.” 2011, Web.