Orhan Pamuk and the democratic experiment

Orhan Pamuk is still awaiting trial in Turkey pending a technicality, while many writers and publishers are still facing trial for Turkey's article 301, which prohibits "publicly denigrating Turkish national identity, the republic, or the Grand National Assembly." Pamuk, who was charged with "slander" for stating a historical fact, has remained for from silent on the issue, not only repeating the phrase which landed him in hot water, but by interviewing prodigously and writing a fascinating article for the New yorker. In the article he laments that his case has been "overdramatized," since the evidence against him is poor, and lesser-known writers face far tougher trials.

it was interesting to hear him mention the effect fo the laws. Partly, they have served to open discussion, despite more dire consequences to do so. Apparently several prestigious Turkish Universities decided to a conference of scholars whose views were not in line with the state's, and "sinnce then, for the first time in many years, there has been public discussion of the subject." Now that Pamuk has been tried, that discussion has opened up into a far broader audience, with stories appearing in most major western news organs.


While the reasons for Pamuk's trial have been written about astutely by writers like Kaelen Wilson-Goldie,* the implications of Turkey's attempt to maintain a democracy while still having control of the media during what it feels may be a public crisis reflects not only on the troubled past of Turkey, but the weaknesses of Democracy elsewhere, particularly in the United States. A party of the people is open, and that means open to nationalism, which explains to a degree what is happening in Turkey. Pamuk poses the question: "What is the logic behind a state that complains that its enemies spead false reports about the Ottoman legacy all over the globe while it prosecutes and imprisons one writer after another, thus propogating the image of the Terrible Turk?" This question hits close to home for me; America is guilty of the same crimes on a lesser level, having an executive branch which insists that we not question the validity of a war we are fighting, or the methods with which we fight it, which sneaks by congress to make secret laws which may violate the constitution, and employs torture in its interogation of suspects, all the while expecting that we be acknowledged at home and abroad as an exemplar of accountable, democratic government. As in Turkey, the war on terror has been used to reestablish the line between privacy and security. Pamuk argues that as the world superpower, America's actions are not without resonance in his own land. We ourselves are subject to what Pamuk regards as the "same contradictions" that fuel oppression in democracies worldwide, from the Russian oppression of Chechens, to the stifling of freedom of expression by Nationalist Hindus in India, to the scandal involving "Scooter" Libby and Carl Rove, which poses the potential case of our government attempting to stifle the voice of its detractors. These contradictions involve the urge to be safe at the expense of free expression, perhaps the most urgent political issue of this new century. Now, however, the increasingly vivid reality of our position in relation to the new Iraq state seems to be threatening the unquestioningly patriotic attitude taken by many citizens and members of the press following 9-11 and the Iraq invasion, and not too soon. "These days," writes Pamuk, "the lies about the war in Iraq and the reports of secret CIA prisons have so damaged the West's credibility in Turkey and in other nations that it is more and more difficult for people like me to make the case for true Western democracy in my part of the world."

*-can be found at:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=20961