In einem exklusiven Interview in der Turkish Policy Quarterly äußert sich Süleyman Demirel, der 9. Präsident der Türkei, zur Verfassung der Demokratie in der Region. Er identifiziert die Grundzüge einer funktionierenden Demokratie und warnt vor schnellen Lösungen, die Kluften aufreißen anstatt überbrücken. Demirel kritisiert die Art und Weise, wie die türkische Regierung ihre Beziehungen zu den USA handhabt und wie sie in Bezug auf die Irak-Frage mit der öffentlichen Meinung umgegangen ist. Bevor er 2000 in den Ruhestand ging, war Demirel 35 Jahre lang in der Politik aktiv. Zwölf Jahre hatte er das Amt des Ministerpräsidenten inne und vor seinem Ruhestand war er türkischer Präsident.
Turkish Policy Quarterly: What are the main barriers to democratization in the Middle East? Is it on its way? Should the developments in Lebanon be considered exceptional or isolated incidents? Do you consider it as the start of a greater change in the region?
Demirel: We have to be sure what we mean when we say Middle East. The Middle East is Turkey, the Middle East is Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt. We also have to include some of the African countries such as Sudan and Somalia in the Middle East. Pakistan is subject to debate. Sometimes, it is closely involved in the problems of the Middle East. However, in the strict sense of the word, the Middle East covers Israel, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates in the Gulf. First of all, the Middle East is heterogeneous. It is composed of peoples and countries which differ in their cultures, religions, languages and political traditions. In most of these countries, “democracy” is rarely mentioned. My belief is that it is wrong to consider all these countries as one big entity named the Middle East. We can not generalize the problems of all these different countries. Each of them has to be evaluated individually as far as democratization is concerned. Maybe we should start with Israel.
Israel has established one of the most powerful democracies in the world . It is hard to apply the same democratic conditions to other countries. Israel’s democracy unites the people of the country with its government. There is no other country in the region which includes this in its daily agenda. In Israel each citizen is a different political party and the political parties try to unite groups who have different views. Each citizen has power. However politics is not abandoned to the man on the street because the man on the street can be misled very easily. Of course the man on the street is taken into consideration, and that is why there are inconsistencies. However, on major issues for the general interests of the country, the Israeli politician is not surrendered to the man on the street.
Palestine is not a state yet. There is a Palestinian Administration but there is not an independent state. As far as I am concerned, the Palestinian Administration is the closest country to this kind of democracy. People have suffered a lot and they have very well educated Palestinians. These people play the main role and have a lot of influence in governance. This means Palestine is not only a terrorist organization, Palestine is not only Intifada, all Palestinians are not terrorists who throw stones at the Israeli police. These people recognize elections. They respect elections.
Of course democracy is not only elections but there is a political dictum, “free and fair elections.” There should be an elected assembly and a government which received the vote of confidence of the assembly. Whether a presidential system or a parliamentary system, the majority of the citizens should determine the executive power. Elections should periodically be repeated. Then comes the main characteristics of democracy such as free justice, free media, free streets, free university and freedom of conscience. The country which unites these shall be successful in its democratization attempt.
The next closest country to these criteria is Iraq. By invading Iraq, the United States and other allied countries have committed themselves to bring democracy. This is now their duty and responsibility towards the people of the world and the citizens of Iraq. The President of the U.S. said, in February 2005, before the American Congress, that they came to Iraq to establish democracy, that the Iraqi people will be governed by a better administration and that they would provide the Iraqis with wealth.
There is a clear relationship between wealth and democracy. If we look at the world’s economy 86 percent of the global income belongs to democratic countries, which represents only 40 percent of the world ’s population. Democracy is freedom, human dignity, and again as I said, it has a lot to do with wealth. Iraq is among the closest countries to democracy in the region. Some successful steps have been taken in this direction. A new constitution entered into force, new elections were held. If Iraq is able to maintain its territorial integrity – it is due to the efforts of its freely elected assembly which unites free political organizations. The claim in Iraq is universal. When Saddam was in power he was considered cruel and according to the majority of Iraqis, he was cruel. He maintained territorial integrity by cruel methods. Now democracy is being experimented with Iraq with territorial integrity being maintained. This is an important experiment for the whole region.
The Greater Middle East Project covers the area between Morocco and Pakistan. We have twenty-two different states and these twenty-two states’ population sums up to 300 million, and a total GNP of 700-800 billion dollars. Whereas Spain has 44 million and its GNP is 800 billion dollars. What I mean is these 300 million, mostly Muslim Arabs, are supposed to possess 66 percent of world’s oil. But as we know, this oil is owned only by a certain number of people in these countries.
If this system continues it will be very hard to ke ep the social peace in these countries. If one day democracy is established in most of these countries, the oil income of any state will be enough to get rid of poverty and educate its people. The political system in these countries is not chosen by the citizens’ will. This means there still is tyranny.
If the problems in Middle East countries are not solved, the world’s peace will again be threatened and people like Osama Bin Ladin will continue to undertake terrorist activities. The main goal of this war against terrorism is to establish peace in the world. It is hard to impose democracy on people. Other countries may help to promote democracy but citizens of the Middle Eastern countries need to be willing to have a democratic administration. If another country helps them form a puppet government, this will also be a failure. The will of the people plays an important role in each country for this Greater Middle East project. Although there are many unknowns, the goal is right. But how will this be handled? In the end, if this project reaches its set goals, I think one of the most important strategic areas in the world will be united and the bridge between east and west will be stronger.
As Europe was demolished after World War II, it had to be reconstructed. Later, Europe became more powerful and wealthier than ever before. In Europe, per capita income is 25,000 dollars. As we all know, Europe was restructured by the Marshall Plan and Truman doctrine. Now the Middle East will be restructured by the Bush doctrine, namely the Greater Middle East doctrine.
The region between Morocco and Pakistan has the richest petroleum, natural gas and carbon reserves in the world, so the entire planet will profit from these natural source s if we all help these countries implement democracy, as well as peace in the region.
Of course the people who control these natural sources today, will not easily abandon their grip on power. Once citizens have power, it will not be easy to change the regime against the people’s will. Up until now, it was said that there was stability in the region, but the cost of this stability was a loss of freedom or simply, dictatorial regimes. If there really was stability in the region, there should not have been wars. You have to implement democracy to establish real stability in the Middle East.
Democracy does not always mean efficient administration. The citizens of each country need to be informed and democratic institutions should all be in place. This will produce free market and free trade economies. Liberal economies need entrepreneurship and economic dynamism of this region is crucial for the global economy.
Turkey is completely different from all the other Middle Eastern countries. Its advanced cultural history played an important role during its democratization period, namely the transition period from a one party system to a multi party system.
U.S. alone can not produce democratization in the region. The people of the countries which will be subject to this experiment will, of course, call this ‘American imperialism’ and all these complaints will trigger anti-Americanism. As a result, even if you try to help some countries, they may consider you an enemy. This is a very complex situation. What I mean by complex is that the implementation of democracy is a hard task. Let’s all hope that there will not be any bloodshed during this period of stabilization. And when I say stabilization, I do not mean dictatorial stabilization or a Pax Romana stabilization, but rather democratic stabilization.
To read the full text of the interview, visit the European Stability Initiative website.