Turkish Armenian Relations

The Civil Society Dimension

The multidimensional aspects of Turkish-Armenian relations have gone through monumental changes in the last two decades. Some of the more important changes include: the breakup of the Soviet Union and the rise of an independent Armenian state, which has added a state-to-state dimension to the bilateral relations; the changing political landscape of Turkey, where in the last decade a rising civil society movement has emerged and started challenging the conventional socio-political processes in the country; and the shifting perceptions within the Armenian diasporas regarding Turkish-Armenian relations after the appearance of an internationally recognized actor—Armenia—and its inclusion in the genocide recognition equation.

This article argues that the civil society dimension in Turkish-Armenian relations is important, based on the premise that only in the case of a well-developed and strong civil society in both entities will it be possible to address the issue of genocide in a constructive way.

Civil society and democracy

The definition of civil society that this research focuses on is taken from the Centre for Civil Society at the London School of Economics. According to this definition, a civil society:

“...refers to the arena of un-coerced collective action around shared interests, purposes, and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market...”

"...commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors, and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy, and power. Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women’s organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions, and advocacy groups."(1) [Emphasis mine]

This being said, it is important to make it clear that civil society operates independent of democracy; it is quite possible to have elements of civil society operating in non-democratic countries, while at the same time not all democracies are conducive to civil society movements.(2)

While civil society and democracy could be mutually exclusive, civil society and commitment to civil action go hand in hand. Commitment to civil action is characterized as individuals acting in unison to advocate “collective action within an array of interests, institutions and networks, developing civic identity, and involving people in governance processes."(3) Furthermore, commitment to civil action occurs through participation in civil society where individual citizens are provided with opportunities to interact with politicians to influence policy or politics.(4) The development of civil society and civil action are possible either through government encouragement and development of such institutions—in the case of more open and democratic societies—or from a bottom-up process where grass-root organizations coalesce to form civil society groups and encourage citizen participation in political processes.

Finally, in a democratic setting, civil society acts as a mediator between individuals and the state apparatus, hence acting as a conduit to communicate personal views and values into state institutions.(5)

Civil society in Turkey

Today Turkey is undergoing major domestic changes which are not getting the attention that they deserve from the Armenian side. Over the last eight decades, Turkey has been trying to redefine itself and find its place in a changing world, among changing ideas about what it means to be Turkish. A growing number of human rights activists in Turkey as well as increased civil society movements have been trying to force Turkey to change from within as well as without.

From within, the issues of respecting human rights and the rights of minorities have been almost ever present in the public discourse of successive Turkish governments during the last several decades. While this discourse has been initiated and encouraged by Ankara’s continued attempts for European Union membership, the results have been more genuine than one would expect; in late 2004, there were some legislative changes to create a less restrictive environment in Turkey and to allow civil society groups to function as alternatives to the existing state institutions.6 This came as the debate of whether Turkey has viable and self-sustaining civil society movements was “raging” in academic and policy circles.(7)

One manifestation of civil society activism in Turkey occurred in January 2007 with the assassination of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. The assassination of Dink on Jan. 19, 2007 resulted in mass outcries by Turks who regarded Dink and his advocacy important for the development of an open Turkey. There were mass demonstrations in the immediate aftermath of the assassination where demonstrators carried signs that read, “We are all Hrant Dink, we are all Armenians.” While these outcries were cautiously greeted by Armenians, it is quite possible that for those Turks taking the streets, Dink’s assassination provided them with a symbol for their cause to push the envelope for socio-political reforms in Turkey.(8)

Civil society in Armenia

Similar to the situation in Turkey, civil society movements in Armenia are a new phenomenon. The past decade witnessed a rise in scholarship on the development of civil society in the post-Soviet space, in general, and in Armenia, specifically.(9)

Also similar to Turkey, the civil society movement in Armenia has witnessed more activism in the past several years, as there has been considerable advancement in the way civil society groups have functioned beyond the realm of NGO sector development and have shifted their attention from humanitarian assistance to democracy building focusing on issues such as human trafficking and women’s participation in politics.(10)

Furthermore, the mass demonstrations that Armenia witnessed in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 presidential elections in February 2008 was viewed by many experts as a sign of a growing number of civil society groups in the country where attention was given on the issue of government accountability and respect for human rights.(11)

Why civil society matters

From the perspective of Turkish-Armenian relations, civil society is bound to play an important role in the enhancement of communication between the two entities. While it is quite possible that the initial stages of communication would have to tackle issues less “painful” than genocide recognition, it is conceivable that over time genocide will be put on the discussion agenda at a popular level and, by extension, at the government level. Civil society is an instrument to allow more voices to be heard in the various socio-political processes in any given country and as such facilitates more representative policies. However, the development of such an atmosphere is conditioned by the establishment of legal boundaries to protect the emerging public space from the influence of state power.(12) Both Turkey and Armenia have gone a long way to create those legal boundaries; however, civil society movements in both countries are still in their infancy and require more time to entrench themselves in their respective countries.

Observing the current social and political developments in Turkey, it is possible to argue that engaging those elements of Turkish society that are adamant to change the political status quo in their country—by advocating for more openness to discuss controversial issues—could yield better results than the oversimplified view that Turkey is the same country it was 30 or even 10 years ago. The lack of parameters for this engagement is what complicates this task. What is meant by parameters is the identification of actors within Turkish society to engage them in communication with their Armenia counterparts; and the setting up of discussion points which, while seemingly non-controversial, could pave the way for a gradual shift towards identifying issues and topics that make Turkish-Armenian rapprochement difficult.

Extended hands over the divide between Turkish and Armenian societies should be based on—and with the goal of—mutual respect for civil society endeavors. Such a goal should be well thought of and articulated to make sure that individuals, groups, parties, and governments on both sides realize that it is mutually beneficial to further the development of civil society. A Turkey where civil society and rule of law prevail would be more likely to recognize the genocide—or at least entertain the idea of talking about the genocide in a critical matter—than one where the government and society are unwilling to even fathom the idea of using the word “genocide.”

EndNotes

1) Definition of civil society, Centre for Civil Society at the London School of Economics at www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/introduction.htm#generated-subheading2, retrieved on March 31, 2008.

2) Brian O’Connell, "Civil Society: Definitions and Descriptions," Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 29 (September 2000), no. 3, p. 477.

3) Terry L. Cooper, Thomas A. Bryer, and Jack W. Meek, “Citizen-Centered Collaborative Public Management,” Public Administration Review 66 (December 2006), supp. 1, p. 76.

4) Ibid.

5) Patrick M. Jenlink, “Creating Public Spaces and Practiced Places for Democracy, Discourse, and the Emergence of Civil Society.” Systematic Practice and Action Research 20 (October 2007), no. 5, p. 432.

6) See Filiz Bikemen, “Progress on Civil Society Legislation in Turkey,” The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law 7 (February 2005), no. 2.

7) For a detailed discussion on pre-2000 civil society development in Turkey, see M. Lutfullah Karaman and Bulent Aras “The Crisis of Civil Society in Turkey,” Journal of Economic and Social Research 2 (2000), no. 2, pp. 39–58.

8) For a more detailed discussion on this issue, see Asbed Bedrossian and Asbed Kotchikian, “Hrant Dink: The Martyr for Many Causes,” Armenian News Network/Groong Review & Outlook. (Feb. 1, 2007). Available at www.groong.com/ro/ro-20070201.html.

9) See for instance Dirk J. Bezemer and Zvi Lerman, “Rural Livelihoods in Armenia,” Post-Communist Economics (September 2004) 16, no. 3, pp. 333–348; Robert S. Chase, “Supporting Communities in Transition: The Impact of the Armenian Social Investment Fund,” The World Bank Economic Review (2002), 16, no. 2, pp. 219–240; and a very recent exhaustive book by Armine Ishkanian titled Democracy Building and Civil Society in Post-Soviet Armenia (Routledge, 2008).

10) See for instance Anna Walker, “Nations in Transit 2007 Reports: Armenia,” Freedom House Report available at www.freedomhouse.hu/images/fdh_galleries/NIT2007final/nit-armenia-web.pdf, accessed on March 31, 2008.

11) See Armine Ishkanian, “Democracy Contested: Armenia’s Fifth Presidential Elections,” openDemocracy, March 4, 2008. Available at www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/caucasus/armenia_elections, accessed on March 31, 2008.

12) See Michael Bernhard, “Civil Society and Democratic Transition in East Central Europe,” Political Science Quarterly 108 (Summer 1993), no. 2, p. 309.