The case of Turkey is a problem for the theories of Robert Putnam, Jurgen Habermas et al. who say that the key to everything good in democratic politics is for people to sit around chatting together. There are an incredible, unbelievable number of associations and unions and NGOs and school clubs, and much free time across the age spectrum is spent sitting in cafes or parks arguing. Twitter and Facebook are extremely popular (some charts here and here). And this vibrant public sphere is an echo chamber of bullshit.
The default logic is to look at a global event, figure how it can been seen by some stretch of the imagine to benefit one global power or another, and then leap to certainty that the event was entirely orchestrated by that global power. This is the logic used across the political spectrum, and lends itself to some remarkably creative theories, putting to shame even the contortions of a cleric explaining how nasty things are also God's will.
The only explanation for the rise/popularity/survival of one's political opponent, be it the AKP, HDP, ISIS, or Bashar al-Assad, is that they are a pawn of the US, UK, and/or Israel. Last night a friend explained to me how from the time of the first Gulf War the US had planned the rise of ISIS by stirring up Shiite opposition but then not deposing Saddam so he would crush them. The US then let sectarianism fester for a decade and then invaded knowing that a few years [and a few thousand US military deaths] down the road ISIS would emerge.
Nobody believes me that the US government is incompetent and bumbling about the world with little foresight, with political and corporate actors certainly taking advantage of opportunities presented to them but controlling very little. And when I point to ideological changes creating policies that are not consistent over time, e.g. the change from a realist Bush I administration that didn't depose Saddam to a neo-con Bush II administration with dreams of democratization, I am met with knowing winks that whatever ideology outwardly appears to be, there is always a deep state within that state that remains constant and really orchestrates everything. (NB one need only go into a wikipedia wormhole clicking on links leading from the Susurluk scandal article to see that there have indeed long been crazy connections in Turkey between drug trafficking, pope shooting, cold war special forces training, Kurdish inter-tribal conflict.... which makes global conspiracy theories seem less fetched)
At any rate, the idea of disunity and inconsistency within world powers clashes unacceptably with the belief in their deity-like powers. Yesterday's friend and others, both Kurds and nationalist Turks, have told me with absolute confidence that if the US wanted to it could crush ISIS in a day, and so ISIS's survival must be part of an American plan. Of course there remains the problem of why the US would want ISIS to thrive. Sources vary in this regard: the US may want an excuse to properly conquer the oil-producing bits of Iraq and Syria. Or it wants to sell more arms to everyone in the region. Or it is afraid that a strong Turkey would undermine American regional influence and so is stirring up shit on Turkey's doorstep.
Certainly a skepticism toward official explanations is healthy and often lacking when you talk politics with Americans, but a public sphere that breeds an understanding of politics based fundamentally in conspiracy theories (substantiated only by retrospective rationalizations of how the powerful might conceivably have wanted events to happen) seems not so much better than culture of complacent fear of whomever your national media tells you is coming for you.
The default logic is to look at a global event, figure how it can been seen by some stretch of the imagine to benefit one global power or another, and then leap to certainty that the event was entirely orchestrated by that global power. This is the logic used across the political spectrum, and lends itself to some remarkably creative theories, putting to shame even the contortions of a cleric explaining how nasty things are also God's will.
The only explanation for the rise/popularity/survival of one's political opponent, be it the AKP, HDP, ISIS, or Bashar al-Assad, is that they are a pawn of the US, UK, and/or Israel. Last night a friend explained to me how from the time of the first Gulf War the US had planned the rise of ISIS by stirring up Shiite opposition but then not deposing Saddam so he would crush them. The US then let sectarianism fester for a decade and then invaded knowing that a few years [and a few thousand US military deaths] down the road ISIS would emerge.
Nobody believes me that the US government is incompetent and bumbling about the world with little foresight, with political and corporate actors certainly taking advantage of opportunities presented to them but controlling very little. And when I point to ideological changes creating policies that are not consistent over time, e.g. the change from a realist Bush I administration that didn't depose Saddam to a neo-con Bush II administration with dreams of democratization, I am met with knowing winks that whatever ideology outwardly appears to be, there is always a deep state within that state that remains constant and really orchestrates everything. (NB one need only go into a wikipedia wormhole clicking on links leading from the Susurluk scandal article to see that there have indeed long been crazy connections in Turkey between drug trafficking, pope shooting, cold war special forces training, Kurdish inter-tribal conflict.... which makes global conspiracy theories seem less fetched)
At any rate, the idea of disunity and inconsistency within world powers clashes unacceptably with the belief in their deity-like powers. Yesterday's friend and others, both Kurds and nationalist Turks, have told me with absolute confidence that if the US wanted to it could crush ISIS in a day, and so ISIS's survival must be part of an American plan. Of course there remains the problem of why the US would want ISIS to thrive. Sources vary in this regard: the US may want an excuse to properly conquer the oil-producing bits of Iraq and Syria. Or it wants to sell more arms to everyone in the region. Or it is afraid that a strong Turkey would undermine American regional influence and so is stirring up shit on Turkey's doorstep.
Certainly a skepticism toward official explanations is healthy and often lacking when you talk politics with Americans, but a public sphere that breeds an understanding of politics based fundamentally in conspiracy theories (substantiated only by retrospective rationalizations of how the powerful might conceivably have wanted events to happen) seems not so much better than culture of complacent fear of whomever your national media tells you is coming for you.
i like that,echo chamber of bullshit.
ReplyDelete