Simulation of the Civil Society: Civil Society Organizations in Turkey

In the Borges tale, cartographers created a map which gives every detail on the territory. As an exact match, the map covers the real territory and it becomes impossible to differentiate territory from the map. However, with the decline of the Empire, the map erodes and finally gets damaged. Some pieces of the map are perceivable only in the deserts where the reality and the map can be differentiated from each other. The enduring talks on civil society in Turkey reminded me this allegory of the Borges tale with which Jean Baudrillard examines the imperceptible metamorphosis between the real and the simulation of it.
When we talk about civil society organizations in Turkey, we mostly refer to voluntary associations, although the common definition of the term includes a wide variety of organizations. A quick glance at civil society organizations in Turkey indicates that most civil society organizations are far from being integrated into the society. Moreover, the members of these kinds of civil society organizations mostly fall into a specific socioeconomic status which is generally higher than the common standards of the society.
window.google_render_ad();
The elitist structure of the organizations of this kind widens the gap between civil society organizations and the public. Although civil society organizations are centered on specific aims such as defending the rights of a group of workers, officials, students or just to bring some social services to people like building schools, pluralism is presumed to be one of the main features of the civil society organizations according to the common definition[1]. On the other hand, in Turkey, whenever a civil society organization comes before people, they act as the representatives of a specific group of people isolating themselves from the rest. Unfortunately, pluralism is observed as the characteristic of a very limited number of organizations.
Second challenge to civil society organizations comes from in-group deficiencies again. The civil society as one of the main deterrents of the transition from the medieval to modern ages is coincided with freedom of thought in the literature from the very beginning[2]. In the European history, this transition is identified with individual’s opposition towards the status quo, specifically, bourgeoisie’s rebellion against aristocracy. Thus, freedom of thought and opposition to the status quo is accepted as another basic characteristic of civil society. Approaching civil society organizations in Turkey from this paradigm does not give us promising scenes as well. For instance, political parties, which can be considered as civil society organizations from some aspects, are under the control of different laws regulating parties in Turkey. The 81st and 82nd articles of the Political Parties Law restrict political parties from giving any references to existence of minorities depending on national or religious culture, sect, ethnicity or language[3]. Considering the narrow sphere in which civil society organizations are confined, it is not surprising that the freedom of thought have not been maintained in this kind of organizations up to now. However, any group’s collective behavior towards outside supports the problematic position of the principle of freedom of thought in the formation of these organizations. Many people seek arenas to raise their own unicolor voices instead of paying efforts for providing atmosphere for pluralism. Hence, it becomes harder to decide if the strict regulations hamper the existence of principle of pluralism in civil society organizations in Turkey or in-group mechanisms do not allow diverse thoughts in one organization.
Deserts of Reality of the Civil Society in Turkey
Beyond numerous structural problems, institutional and economic problems confine civil society in a very narrow sphere in which there is not much means for a systematic expansion of the civil society organizations. As a result, civil society becomes a distant ideal which can only be mentioned but never be achieved. Although, establishment of the Department of Associations in 2003 is a considerable step for taking systematical measures to better civil society organizations, it is a very young institution considering its counterparts in Europe. Since, the Department of Associations is founded as a result of the EU report in 2002, it gives cynicism about being one of the organizations which is established under EU’s request but could not match its role exactly.
Focusing on the assumption that the idea of civil society in modern sense occurred in 1970s in Turkey,[4] we can say that the effect of the 1980s military intervention was vital for premature characteristics of the civil society. Different laws imposed by the state did not provide a fertile arena for the development of civil society organizations, moreover, long term ban on civil society organizations from 1980 to 1991 created an inadequate version of the ideal. This approach created a civil-like society which covered the ideal of civil society exactly. Refraining from being caught by the high limits of the laws, civil society organizations chose more apolitical ways instead of challenging the authorities. However, this stand of the organizations as the supporters of the system more than supporters of people carries them to a dilemmatic position. At this point organizations fail to represent people fully.
Liberals’ optimistic comments on civil society make us think that Turkey created a civil society which paves Turkey’s way to European Union. However, when it comes to significant matters such as restrictions on organizations advocating the existence of different groups depending on ethnicity, religion, language or sex, problematic aspects of the civil society organizations in Turkey appear more clearly. Baudrillard ends up saying “If we could revive the map today, we could see that it is the territory rotting across the map and the deserts are no longer belong to the Empire but ourselves. The desert of the real itself.”[5] Adopting Baudrillard’s examination, we can say, only with the help of these problematic arenas of the civil society, we can realize rotting pieces of our ideal civil society on the deserts of reality itself. Whenever exactly different groups of people can get unified under one or multiple aims, then, we will talk about civil society with our heads up. Otherwise, our realities will continue to rot across the deserts of this illusionary civil society in Turkey.

Dilek Aydemir
dileka2002@yahoo.com
September 15, 2008



[1] İbrahim F., Wedel H. (1997). Ortadoğu’da Sivil Toplumun Sorunları. İstanbul:İletişim Yayınları

[2] Keyman F. (2004). Türkiye ve Avrupa’da Sivil Toplum. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi

[3] Siyasi Partiler Kanunu
http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/2820sk.htm
[4] Keyman F. (2004). Türkiye ve Avrupa’da Sivil Toplum. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi


[5] Baudrillard J. (1988). Selected Writings. Ed. Mark Poster. Standford: Standford University Press.


http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2982