On the need for remembering Gezi Park right


Published by Today's Zaman, 5 June 2013

Much has been and will be written about why and how a small and peaceful protest in Taksim Square's Gezi Park evolved into a large social eruption. Relatively little has been said about what this might mean politically, socially, economically and diplomatically in the near future.

No matter from which political angle one looks at the events we have seen in Turkey over the past days, it is clear that one of the biggest problems in Turkey is our weak democratic culture. We have problems in handling different opinions, lifestyles, beliefs and political views and expressing ourselves, compromising, negotiating and reconciling.

Soon, there will be healthy calls for accountability and justice over how the police and authorities and, in some cases, protesters have conducted themselves and how the government handled this process. All of these are necessary, but if we want to see a lasting impact of what we have experienced last week and if we want to learn lessons from it as a nation beyond our usual polarization of “us” versus “them,” we must find ways to conceptualize Gezi Park's memory from now on.



One way of not only memorializing but also seeking to develop Turkey's democratic culture would be to declare Gezi Park as a Speakers' Corner in the style of Hyde Park in London. This would not only make sure that protesters' voices are not lost amid all the party politics and finger pointing that will follow, but also it would give us an inclusive platform to learn to communicate, listen and disagree. Thus, it would be a memorial site with a dynamic and future-looking aspect, which not only seeks to establish an account of what happened but universalizes what we learn or should learn from it.

Without finding a way to remember Gezi right and utilize it for a better future for Turkey, sadly its memory will remain as a divided account, like the protests that took place in Turkey between 2002 and 2008.
What the protests symbolized was much more important and powerful than mere party politics. We saw people from all walks of life, who felt that their voices, thoughts and opinions were not represented either by the government party nor opposition groups, protesting for no major cause but to say, “I am here, this is my view, my concern.” That voice has to be continually heard, beyond who votes or supports what party or follows which cultural or political affinity.

To this end, it would be a symbolic but important step if the Turkish government, in conversation with the protesters, declares Gezi Park as a Speakers' Corner. Both groups can come with a clear list of rules of conduct and post it there. Security forces would be told not to interfere.

Yes, it would be a small and symbolic step. No, it won't solve any major problems. Yes, both the government, opposition parties, NGOs and wider public have so much to learn from the events of last week. But at least it would be a tangible and physical expression, a space and experiment for all of us to learn to respect one another. And who knows, one day, no such physical space might be needed in Turkey and we will all abide by rules of conduct we develop to ensure we talk to and hear one another.

The Danger with Faith-Based Humanitarianism


Published by Today's Zaman, 21 January 2013


Without a doubt, one of the least acknowledged heroes of global efforts to eradicate poverty and diseases, respond to emergencies and advance human rights and welfare are faith-based organizations and initiatives.

Faith-based groups are able to raise funds and mobilize effectively both in their home countries and internationally. Often, their workers are seen in some of the most dangerous places on earth, taking serious risks to their lives, trying to help people in places that traditional organizations or international bodies fail to reach. There is much to applaud in their work. However, just as the work of traditional mainstream charities has often unintended negative side effects, faith-based humanitarianism too has its demons.

While this is increasingly changing, most of the time, faith-based initiatives tend to bring help to and raise awareness of the suffering of their own co-religionists. Thus, Christian groups in the developed world seek to address the persecution of Christians abroad and often send aid to their co-religionists. This applies to all faith-groups, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish.

This is not necessarily wrong and truly understandable. None of us can address every issue in the world, and all of us choose issues and concerns that we are related to or have an interest in. Writers who support the concerns of writers in other countries, or academics seeking to protect scholars at risk, or feminist groups working on women's rights abroad all emerge from the same human starting point.
However, unless it is balanced and self-reflexive, faith-based initiatives that emerge from a single tradition and only seek to address the suffering of their own co-religionists can undermine not only the welfare of their own brethren abroad in the long run but also the entire sprit of humanitarianism.

For example, the last 10 years have seen an immense increase in persecution of Christians globally. A plethora of Christian groups that promote religious freedom abroad emerged, and almost all of them only address the suffering of Christians in the countries for which they advocate. Yet, all of the problems faced by Christians in a given country are only part of a larger problem that persecutes other minorities too, and only with a holistic approach can their suffering be ultimately addressed. By only raising the suffering of Christians, say in Iran, Christians de facto turn a blind eye to the suffering of others, for example, Baha'is in Iran who suffer much more than Christians. This poses some serious ethical questions about their work.

Most importantly, faith-based activism can easily contribute to the imagined “clash of civilizations” narratives and cement increasing prejudice among faith groups in the world. Take the example of the Turkish discovery of the suffering of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. The Turkish public has only recently really heard about them and, by and large, only recently learned where the country is on the world map. When the depth of the suffering of Rohingyas became known, thanks to the efforts of the Turkish government, the Turkish public was rightfully outraged and Turkey rightfully has been working hard to help Muslims in Myanmar. 

 All of this is noble and valuable.However, in the process of this interest and response, calls to help Rohingya Muslims repeated all of the fundamental mistakes of faith-based humanitarianism. In Myanmar, not only the Muslims but other ethno-religious minorities too continue to face ethnic cleansing, famine and serious human rights abuses. Christian peoples of Chin, Kachin and Karen fill up refugee camps on the Thai-Burmese border. Yet, none of the appeals for Myanmar in Turkey raised the issue of their suffering alongside the suffering of the Muslims.

More worryingly, the Rohingya issue often became portrayed in the “when Muslims suffer, the world is silent” narrative. In this case, it can be empirically proven wrong. For more than a decade, I have witnessed first-hand the work of a wide range of groups working on suffering of ethno-religious minorities in Myanmar, most of which were either Western or non-Muslim or were formed by other ethnic exiles from Myanmar. The UNHCR has campaigned for years to address the treatment of Rohingya refugees.

While it was tempting to slip into the usual “evil West” syndrome, hardly any Turkish commentator asked the painful question: Why is it that the Muslims of the world have only discovered the Rohingya now? Similarly, in almost all articles I have read in the Turkish press that lapsed into this “no one cares about Muslims” narrative, none really mentioned that one of the worst expressions of suffering of Rohingyas today is in Muslim-majority Bangladesh.

Such confused representations are often caused by a lack of knowledge of complex issues and awareness of the efforts of so many groups trying to do something. Yet, when faith-based humanitarianism slips into working only for their own brethren and into the narrative of “the world is against us,” it fuels dangerous misperceptions and prejudices. This does not help the suffering of their co-religionists in the long run, and empties their humanitarianism by reducing it to partisanship carried on the global stage.

The solution to this vulnerability of faith-based initiatives does not lie in secular humanism, but in faith traditions themselves. In all religions, we see strong theological mandates to love one's neighbor and help those in need, even when they are utter strangers. Thus, the problem with faith groups today is that they are often not faithful enough. They are vulnerable to give in to the all-too-human sentiments to care for “one of us” when they should be fixing their eyes on their Lord, who teaches them to love and help every human being, no matter who he or she is.

The Future of Gulen Movement


Leaving aside all of the conspiracy theories and anxieties, the Gulen movement, also known as the Hizmet from the Turkish word for service, is one of the most fascinating and out of the box faith-based movements that have emerged from the Muslim world recently.

It is clear that the movement has come a long way from its humble origins in Turkey as a local conservative Islamic initiative to rejuvenate faith into a global network of schools, charities, media outlets and businesses. Today, Turks inspired by the teachings of the Turkish imam and scholar Fethullah Gulen can be seen setting up institutions, organizations and companies in far flung corners of the world.

While most of what is written about the movement remains retrospective and critical of its current status, in this brief article I want to draw attention to few questions that need to be asked in order to forecast the future of the movement.

First of these is what will happen when Mr Gulen passes away? While he still accepts visitors, delivers talks, studies and publishes, it is a well known fact that his health is weak and he does suffer from the all too human limitation of being mortal.

The dynamic nature of the organization of the movement means that even though there is an organic accountability structure, local initiatives are independent in their day to day affairs. Thus, Gulen’s death would not cause a stop or change in any of the movement’s activities.

However, even though currently Gulen only serves as a wise authority that countless bodies approach on issues of disagreement and crisis rather than a CEO with executive powers, without him the movement will lack a ‘plumb line’ that will keep it focused and united.

After Gulen, issues of dispute, difference and conflict will be solved either through interpretation of his work or through the intervention of key figures of the movement, thus opening the door for non-conclusive tensions and debates on ‘what would Gulen do’. This will inevitably create power-tensions and personality clashes among leaders of various segments of the movement as well as different theological preferences.

The movement is now too large and diverse in political, social and economic backgrounds for any voluntary network to maintain coherence and without a spiritual guide that holds its vision together, different voices and cohorts will inevitably pull charities and organizations to different directions.

Will the movement’s Turkish nationalist and liberal voices clash in their visions? Will the globally experienced cosmopolitan affiliates find themselves at odds with Gulen followers in more traditional Turkey? Will significant economic and social uplifting we see in Hizmet circles open the door for resentment of its own privileged elites? In other words, will we see multiple Hizmets?

While most of those who associate themselves with Mr Gulen’s teaching are sincere folk who try do their best to serve to humanity as Muslims, undeniably, it is now profitable to affiliate with the movement for business and self-advancement purposes, thus not all who join the ranks have clear pure motives. Therefore, as its reach and influence continue to grow, will the movement be able to maintain its spiritual core values or will it evolve into becoming nothing short of an Islamic equal of the Rotary or Lions clubs?

The future of the movement also goes through on how it will handle its roots and activities in Turkey. Will the movement remain as a movement of Turks abroad or will it make the jump into becoming a truly global movement that originated in Turkey but includes peoples of all nations? 

Thus far, vast majority of activities of the movement can be seen as Turks carrying the Turkish flag and culture abroad alongside its more universally appealing faith-inspired values. While the movement is enculturating itself abroad through second and third generation migrants and locals who studied in Hizmet schools, it is still dominated by Turks, Turkish and Turkish culture.

Accusations of institutionalization in key Turkish state structures continue to cast a cloudy shadow on the movement, although a lot of this sort of thinking is exaggerated thanks to the annual need in Turkey to find a domestic threat to nation’s secular existence. Nevertheless, the initial know-how and survival strategies of the movement in Turkey are increasingly stifling its global future. Will the movement be able to put its Turkish home in order and move on from its old frameworks?

These are neither all of the questions that need to be asked or a comprehensive list of things to watch out for. Nevertheless, the answers researchers and affiliates of the movement might seek to give to these questions will not only be vital in developing healthier understanding of the movement but also similar new generation Islam inspired civil movements that do not fit into any of traditional categories we ascribe to them.


New Essay: A Duty to Remember?

"A Duty to Remember? Politics and Morality of Remembering Past Atrocities"

 by Ziya Meral

 Journal of International Political Anthropology, Vol 5 (2012) No.1 
An allusion to a “duty to remember” the dark episodes of history is a common occurrence in
today’s politics and popular discourse. The vision behind the call never to forget genocides,
massacres and wars is noble and praiseworthy. However, the way in which such events are
formulated and used is so embedded in the present as to raise serious questions about the
morality and political agendas of those who selectively undertake projects to enshrine past
atrocities. This essay seeks not only to decode the socio-political process for handling the past
but also to challenge the conventional belief that remembering the past will prevent future crimes
and heal countries. It goes on to argue for a balanced, realistic and ethical relationship between
the past and present.

New Publication: Caring for the "Other" as one of "Us"

Dear readers,

I am pleased to notify you on the release of a new book I contributed to.

Abraham's Children: Liberty and Tolerance in an Age of Religious Conflict has been released by Yale University Press. It brings together 15 Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars, activists and politicians to challenge and urge their co-religionists to follow a path of peace making in an age of conflict.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu endorsed the book with the following statement: "Tolerance is in all-too-short supply in our world. Most attempts to cultivate greater tolerance urge us to set aside our differences, including our religious differences, and focus on what unites us. Many people find it difficult if not impossible to do that. The authors in this collection, each one a leading member of one or another of the Abrahamic religions, take a strikingly different and fresh approach. Each one probes the resources of his or her own religion to make a case for tolerating one's fellow human beings even when one disagrees on important matters. Over and over I had the experience of scales falling off my eyes. It would be hard to exaggerate the importance and promise of these fascinating essays for advancing the cause of tolerance."

 Below is the full list of contributors.. 

Intro: Kelly Clark

Jewish Voices: Einat Ramon, Dov Berkovits, Leah Shakdiel, Arik Ascherman, Nurit Peled-Elhanan

Christian Voices: Jimmy Carter, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Ziya Meral, Hanna Siniora, Miraslov Volf

Muslim Voices: Abdurrahman Wahid, Hedieh Mirahmadi, Fethullah Gulen, Rana Husseini, Abdolkarim Soroush

New Essay: International Religious Freedom Advocacy in the Field

A new essay where I survey how religious freedom advocacy is done today, how and where it differs from regular human rights advocacy work, what challenges it faces and its future.

"International Religious Freedom Advocacy in the Field: Challenges Effective Strategies and the Road Ahead", The Review of Faith & International Affairs; Volume 10, Issue 3, 2012;

Access the essay here!