The unbearable lightness of UMNO’s rebellion

“…Erdogan may have begun his public career as an Islamist politician with an inclination to democratic persuasion. But after several years in power, his religious orientation, like Morsi’s, has not been a sufficient check on his appetite for increased power and its trappings…That should come as no surprise to those brought up on the wisdom of Lord Acton’s dictum on the corruptive consequences of power. A religious orientation is no guarantee of immunity from its effects.”–Terence Netto

COMMENT: Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was the Islamist-democrat who some time ago was held up in parts of the democratising world as the object of emulation.

The leader of the religiously-inclined Justice and Development Party (AKP), elected to rule Turkey in 2002 after years of misrule by secular parties, would demonstrate for all the Western and Muslim worlds to see that an Islamist orientation would not render a governor inhospitable to democracy.

Pakatan Rakyat supremo Anwar Ibrahim would favourably cite of Erdogan every chance he got during the long prelude to Election 2013. He, like Erodgan, was going – if given the chance at GE13 – to reshape the widespread assumption that an Islamist worldview was necessarily hostile to the premises and postulates of democracy.

Today, after nearly 11 years of rule by AKP and following the events of the last few weeks in Istanbul’s Taksim Square where huge crowds have demonstrated their contempt for Erdogan’s methods, the Turkish premier no longer looks the model Islamist-democrat.

Instead, Erdogan seems more like Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader who behind a democratic veneer deploys methods of repression of the opposition that recall the ways of the worst autocrats in the history of a nation notable for its ability to engender the species.

That Erdogan the Islamist has morphed into someone more reminiscent of the oligarchs that have dotted Russian history does not necessarily render the notion of the Islamist-democrat oxymoronic.

It’s just that, after what Mohamed Morsi had turned out to be in Egypt after the heady promises of the Arab Spring (2011-2012) at Tahrir Square, it is more difficult to contend that an Islamist orientation can co-exist with democratic persuasion in the same ruler.

Slippery slope to authoritarism

Let’s see how the erstwhile Erdogan slithered down the slope to authoritarianism. He began the slide towards autocracy by announcing his intention in 2011 to Islamise a generation. This intention boded ill for the democratic and pluralistic aspects of Turkish society.

After having reconfigured the exam formula applicants for university admissions had to sit for to benefit those who had attended Iman Hatip schools – the Turkish equivalent of the madrassa – over those who had a liberal arts education, Erdogan’s administration decreed that the religious instruction that is already in the state curriculum be Sunnism, ignoring the fact that 20 percent of Turkish Muslims are Alevis, not Sunnis.

The Erdogan model of political development in tandem with Islamism took an ominous stride towards autocracy in 2005 when Bulent Arinc, then Speaker of the Parliament, threatened to dissolve the constitutional court if it continued to find AKP legislation unconstitutional.

This threat took on added menace when subsequently Erdogan promoted Arinc to be his chief deputy. This was followed by the PM himself describing the separation of powers as the government’s main obstacle to the introduction of steps the AKP wanted to effect.

Six months ago, Hurriyet Daily News, a leading newspaper in the country quoted Erdogan to this effect: “Even during our own governing tenure, we are having some troubles. Unfortunately, the errors within the system are the causes of those troubles. Since the system was built the wrong way, we are facing some unexpected troubles. Bureaucracy blocks our path or we face the judiciary unexpectedly….”

Peace deal with the Kurds

Erdogan’s growing taste for the acquisition of power further manifested itself in the peace deal he worked out with imprisoned Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan.

Doubts over the durability of the pact, agreed to last March, revolve around the unwillingness of Erdogan to implement the confederation between the Kurds and the Turks that Ocalan’s (left) followers demand.

The political reorganisation entailed by such a confederation would also demand reforms to the security forces and intelligence services that had once repressed the Kurds.

Erdogan, though loathe to give full force to the confederation implied by the peace pact with the Kurds, is keen on obtaining the support of Kurdish voters for any constitutional referendum to endow a revamped presidency with new powers. Erdogan is interested to run for the post when he retires as PM.

Also, Erdogan wants the peace pact with the Kurds to win for Istanbul the host status for the 2020 Summer Olympics, an award that would see huge construction projects in the city, a large share of which is almost certain to be stream to Calik Holdings, a company run by his son-in-law.

In other words, Erdogan may have begun his public career as an Islamist politician with an inclination to democratic persuasion. But after several years in power, his religious orientation, like Morsi’s, has not been a sufficient check on his appetite for increased power and its trappings.

That should come as no surprise to those brought up on the wisdom of Lord Acton’s dictum on the corruptive consequences of power. A religious orientation is no guarantee of immunity from its effects.

At the time of writing this, hectic negotiations were on, to find a suitable compromise that would assuage Muhyiddin’s hurt feelings without changing the decision to let Najib lead the charge in 2014. Let us be clear. There is no matter of principle or ideology at stake in the Najib-Muhyidd in rest battle in UMNO. Muhyiddin was the face of hardline Malayand Najib liberal Malay If one has to hunt for a nuanced difference between the two on this score.Having made that point,Muhyiddin  is likely to relent, and allow himself to be propitiated by the Mahathir

After Najib won the 2013 elections ,Mahathir visited  Najib and Rosmah and fed them best malabar mutton briayani  . Right now, Muhyiddin is probably figuring out what briayani to put into  Mahathir’s mouth after the 2013 elections. The man likes to think ahead. Except that the best laid plans of mice, men and supermen have a tendency to go off-track.Giving his best to the job of derailment is Mahathir, the patriarch of the UMNO, who led the organisation from the margins of the polity to the seat of power.Isn’t Mahathir being undemocratic, standing against the wishes of a clear majority of party men? This is to assume that democracy somehow matters to the internal working of the UMNO. Nobody can vouch if there is a democratic process in place in the UMNO to choose office decor, but there is no dispute that the party president, other central office-bearers and all other matters of significance in the partyis decided by Mahathir

Dr M has spoken of the need to have a contest for the top posts at the Umno elections later this year.Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today supported proposals for no contests for the top two Umno posts as it would split the party and Malays, joining a long line of party leaders against any challenges.

The influential former prime minister’s comments came days after he told fund managers that there should be contests for all posts in Umno, which will hold party elections this November.

“Going by the democratic practice, we should have contests but Malaysians do not really understand the practice. If they lose, they will quit the party and set up another, causing the Malays and Umno to split further.

“In this connection, I support contests, but not for the two top posts of president and deputy president.

“I have contested before (for the post of Umno president) and I have won by only 43 votes. The loser took me to court and set up another party. The Malays have split due to the contests,” Dr Mahathir was quoted as saying by the Bernama news service.

Dr Mahathir was referring to the 1987 party polls where he was challenged by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

Eleven Umno members complained that there were illegal branches who sent representatives to decide on delegates and in 1988, the courts declared Umno illegal because of such branches.

Tengku Razaleigh tried to re-register as Umno Malaysia but was denied by the Registrar of Societies (RoS), who accepted Dr Mahathir’s registration for Umno Baru. Since then, there has been no contests for the top two party posts.

Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Mansor said on Sunday that the party supreme council had already decided that both the president and deputy president posts would not be contested in the party elections.

He expressed surprised over the claim by Umno supreme council member Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh that the move would be regarded as “undemocratic”.

“During the previous supreme council meeting we decided that the two highest positions would not be contested.

“He (Idris Jusoh) also shared the same view with us during the meeting and I don’t think he expressed otherwise,” Tengku Adnan said in quotes carried byThe Malay Mail. 

Idris said on Saturday that the public would see no contests as undemocratic although it would be good for the party.

Pahang Umno liaison chairman Datuk Seri Adnan Yaakob was among the few who said the positions should be opened for contest.

Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak said on May 31 that he prepared for any challenges for his position in the party polls.

However, there have been more calls against any challenges for top party posts, including by Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin and today by the Federal Territory Umno. – June 17, 2013.

At the same time, critics are unhappy at the rapid pace of urbanization in Turkey’s metropolitan cities. Erdogan is planning to build a third airport, a third Bosphorus bridge and a canal linking the Black Sea with the Sea of Marmara, which are likely to destroy millions of trees and a delicate ecosystem in northern Istanbul. A staggering $4.7 billion was spent on ambitious construction projects last year in Istanbul alone.

Given the litany of grievances and the confrontational nature of Turkish politics, the raging protests come as no surprise. They coincide with a rapidly slowing economy that is likely to witness moderate growth rates at best for the foreseeable future without increased structural reforms. Unfortunately, the Turkish government is not expected to undertake major reform initiatives anytime soon, especially since the campaigning for the local and presidential elections in 2014 and the parliamentary elections in 2015 are already underway.

Despite the rising emotions sweeping Turkey, this is not equivalent to the “Arab Spring” that led to the toppling of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Unlike Egypt and other Arab countries, Turkey is a functioning, albeit incomplete, democracy and has been since 1950.

Erdogan received a resounding mandate of almost half the vote in the last general elections in 2011. He still remains the most popular politician in Turkey, while the opposition is widely seen by many Turks as weak and ineffective.

Undoubtedly, the global media coverage of the riots and the disproportionate security response has dented the international image of Erdogan and the governing Justice and Development Party as a progressive force in Turkey’s political scene. Nevertheless, the ultimate determinant of Erdogan’s staying power will be the state of the Turkish economy rather than anti-government demonstrations.

What’s driving unrest and protests in Turkey?

Einstein once told Neils Bohr that “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.” However, it would seem that God – if indeed there is such an entity, be it in the non-form of a Higgs-Boson subatomic particle or any other manifestation – does indeed gamble with the universe, and does so with the most unpredictable of dice.

The world we live in is a world ruled by randomness, by the throw of totally unpredictable dice: this is the central tenet of Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s work. NNT, as he’s popularly known among his many fans (who outnumber his foes, but only just about) is arguably one of the most provocative and controversial thinker-writers of our times.

A Lebanese by birth and a naturalised US citizen who lives mostly in a New York City suburb, Taleb started his career as a daily trader on the stock exchange. He watched a few people make fortunes (some of them with his help), and he witnessed a lot more lose fortunes, on the roller-coaster ups and downs of the markets.

It was through such experiences that he formulated his theory of unpredictability in a book called Fooled by Randomness which argued, with passion leavened with biting humour, against the dangerous illusion that it was possible to foresee what the future had in store for us, not only in terms of the financial markets but everything else in life.

The main problem, as Taleb sees it, is that we try to predict the future by looking at the past, which is as hazardous as driving a car forward by looking at the rear-view mirror. We look at past evidence of experience – the road behind us – and believe the future – the road ahead – will be the same. Till we fall off a cliff that the past did not help us to foresee.

In his second book, the Black Swan, Taleb talked about the inherent dangers of relying on inductive logic, based on past observation. A bird-watcher notes that all the swans he has ever seen are white. So he concludes that all swans have to be white, and is willing to bet his life on it. Then he comes across a black swan and his entire Grand Theory of Swanology is shot to pieces and, with it, his life.

Taleb’s advice: prepare yourself to encounter black swans – the utterly random and unpredictable event or situation – which can be either adverse or beneficial. The US subprime financial crisis, from which the global economy is yet to recover, was an adverse black swan. J K Rowling’s Harry Potter series making her the first-ever writer to become a billionaire through writing was a beneficial black swan.

As adverse black swans (losing everything in a stock market crash) are harmful, sometimes almost fatally so, it is better to protect yourself from them rather than just to live in hope of a beneficial black swan (winning the lottery). How best to survive black swan encounters is the theme of Taleb’s latest book, Antifragile.

The author has coined the word ‘antifragile’ to denote the opposite of the fragile, the most vulnerable to sudden change.  ‘Antifragile’ refers to the capacity to not just withstand but to benefit from sudden, often violent change.

“Wind extinguishes a candle and energises fire. Likewise with randomness, uncertainty, chaos: you want to use them, not hide from them. You want to be the fire and wish for the wind,” says Taleb in his prologue.

Nietzsche’s saying that ‘That which does not kill me makes me stronger’ sums up the antifragile. Taleb cites the stoic philosophers of ancient Rome as examples of antifragility. “When Zeno of Kition…suffered a shipwreck…he declared himself lucky to be unburdened so he could now do philosophy…Stoicism…becomes pure robustness…the attainment of a state of immunity from one’s external circumstances, good or bad, and an absence of fragility to decisions made by fate.”

Such descriptions of antifragility – as a form of detachment from the fruits of one’s actions, be those fruits bitter or sweet – will evoke a sense of deja vu among those familiar with the teachings of the Bhagwad Gita. Krishna is the ultimate mentor, imparting the wisdom of what Taleb calls antifragility to Arjun.

Someone should send NNT a copy of the Gita. Who knows? It might well inspire a sequel to Antifragile in the form of a dialogue between the author and the invincible charioteer set against the interchangeable backdrop of Kurukshetra and Wall Street as a global time bomb waiting to go off.