Caught in the Crossfire

Turkish writer and human rights activist Dogan Akhanli talks to Eren Güvercin about his politically motivated trial, the Turkish judicial system and the current socio-political debate in his home country

You recently returned to Turkey for the first time in almost 20 years to visit your father, who was seriously ill. You were arrested on a charge of having taken part in a robbery in 1989. What exactly were you accused of?

Dogan Akhanli (photo: dpa)
Caught in the crossfire: although Dogan Akhanli was released from custody by an Istanbul court four months after his arrest on charges of robbery and manslaughter, his trial is scheduled to continue on 9 March

​​Dogan Akhanli: The public prosecutor's office claimed they had evidence to prove that I was one of three people involved in the robbery in 1989. One of the eyewitnesses, whose father was also killed during the robbery, supposedly identified me from photographs. The problem is not that I was arrested; I realise that this terrible crime needs to be solved. the problem is, that three days later, this witness testified that he had never identified anyone in a photograph. The public prosecutor then chose not only to ignore this statement, but also to attempt to conceal the fact that it had been made at all.

This robbery is a very serious crime, and one that cannot be ignored. But if the prosecution – for whatever reason – simply fabricates evidence against someone who happens to come along at an opportune moment, then it is the state that is committing a crime. They made me out to be the leader of a terrorist organisation that doesn't even exist. I first heard the name of this organisation when the indictment was read out; it was a name I had never heard before. I never had anything to do with any such organisation.

Was it perhaps a delayed revenge for your activities in left-wing organisations during the turbulent days of the coup in 1980?

Akhanli: One motivation was certainly that I was a left-wing underground fighter. The public prosecutor's problem now was that I had returned after 20 years in exile as a writer and human rights activist. I never made any attempts to conceal my past; I have remained critical. The public prosecutor knew exactly who I was; he had collected all the newspaper clippings about me. I have to say that he took his work very seriously. But even though he could see that I have nothing to do with this case, he still made malicious attempts to construct a case against me.

How did the government react to your arrest?

Günter Wallraff (photo alliance/dpa)
"What the courts did to Akhanli was clear deprivation of liberty," says the writer's friend, German journalist, Günter Wallraff

​​Akhanli: We don't really know. Germany sent a note of protest to the Ministry of Justice in Ankara. The Ministry of Justice then demanded an explanation from the judge concerned. Neither the public prosecutor nor the judge reacted to this demand from the Ministry of Justice for 15 days.

It was only when the Ministry of Justice persisted that the public prosecutor and the judge responded. And their response was simply to forward the indictment to the ministry without any comment. This clearly indicates that there is conflict between the government and the Ministry of Justice.

For some years now, the government and certain circles within the judiciary and the military have been at loggerheads. Do you think, then, that to a certain extent, it was a case of you being caught in the crossfire? Was it possibly a case of you offering those people within the judiciary a welcome opportunity to use the scandal to discredit the government before the European Union?

Akhanli: I can very well believe that it was a case of me being caught in the crossfire. In Turkey everything is very politicised. Take the Ergenekon trial, for example. The fact that an attempt is being made to come to terms with the darker chapters of Turkey's history is highly commendable. However, one can also see that not everything is being done according to the rules. And it is clear that this case, too, is becoming more and more politicised.

According to Turkish press releases, the prosecutors and judge responsible for my case belong to the nationalist camp. So you are correct when you say that I have been caught in the crossfire. Were I to be given a life sentence, it would not be a problem for the nationalists. The government, on the other hand, would find itself in a very awkward position.

Your trial is to be continued in March. What are you expecting from the trial? Moreover, given the danger that you may be arrested again, do you even intend to take part?

Residents of Diyarbakir celebrating the Kurdish New Year (photo: AP)
In Turkey, there is a new level of moderation and a readiness to engage in political dialogue over the Kurdish conflict

​​Akhanli: Initially, I decided that I would take no further part in the court case. Since I intended to remain silent in the court, however, it would not have made much sense to go. But now I am thinking that maybe I should participate in the trial, and that by being there, I can help expose the arbitrariness of the state's actions – because that is what has brought this court case about.

If one looks at the way things have been developing in recent years one sees just how much is changing in Turkey. The Armenian question or the Kurdish problem can now be talked about openly. But there have been quite a few setbacks too. How would you assess what has happened in recent years and what do you see as the reasons behind the recurring justice scandals?

Akhanli: On the one hand, I do, of course, see these positive changes in Turkish society. They must not be overlooked, and, indeed, it would be unfair to the democratic forces in Turkey not to acknowledge them. The problem with the way things have been going, however, is that the government is practically alone in wanting to press ahead with the changes. The other political groups in the country are against it. It is a situation that can only lead to impasse, a dead end.

My four months in Turkey convinced me that there are only two political forces in the country capable of effective political action: the Kurds and the government. It gives one great hope to see how the two sides are discussing the Kurdish question. At times the debate is more spirited and open than one would expect even in Germany.

The government has not been afraid to make major compromises and, behind the scenes, has even been talking to Abdullah Ocalan. But for all the progress there have been many steps backward, such as when the government suddenly begins talking about "one" country, "one" language and "one" nation. All this talk of a nationalistic ideology harks back to the Young Turks movement, which was the source of this problem. It is on the Turkish side in particular that the major obstacles remain. Turkish intellectuals, even those on the left, don't see that the Kurds have suffered any injustice.

Is it fair to say that Turkey's main problem is down to the lack of any real opposition party? The secular Republican People's Party (CHP), for example,which describes itself as a social democratic party, is weak and polarises the political debates…

Kemal Kilicdaroglu, opposition leader of the secular CHP (photo: AP)
Polarisation as a political strategy: according to Dogan Akhanli, the Turkish political landscape is still very ideologically aligned –"You are either friend or foe"

​​Akhanli: That's true. Turkey's greatest problem is the lack of an effective opposition. There is no proper forum for discussion at all. What you have instead is a complete polarisation. The Turkish political landscape is still very ideologically aligned – you are either friend or foe.

The so-called opposition parties, whether it be the CHP or the MHP, merely seek opportunities to polarise society. If the CHP continues to provide such poor political opposition and to pursue such a militaristic line, then it will continue to lose votes. They need a change of course. They describe themselves as social democrats, but their policies are anything but social democratic.

Rather than stirring up cultural enmity, should the CHP not, as a social democratic party, be concentrating on attacking the neoliberal policies of Prime Minister Erdogan?

Akhanli: I have the feeling that the CHP is not interested in that at all. I followed the Turkish press closely during the time I spent in custody. After my release, I spoke to many different people. I realised that the CHP in particular was pursuing a very foolish policy. One gets the impression that the CHP is interested only in the headscarf debate. They simply cannot let it rest, though this persistence in a senseless debate is costing them dearly in terms of credibility with the people. They have no political ideas or vision of their own; they have nothing to offer on the country's economic policies, for example. They simply respond to whatever Erdogan has to say.

Interview conducted by Eren Güvercin

© Qantara.de 2011

Translated from the German by Ron Walker

Editor: Aingeal Flanagan/Qantara.de

Qantara.de

The Case of Dogan Akhanli
Without Mercy
The German-Turkish writer Dogan Akhanli has just been released from his Istanbul prison cell, but the story of his imprisonment, as retold here by Kai Strittmatter, reads like an unbelievable tale about the cruel absurdities of the Turkish judiciary

Turkey and the Ergenekon Secret Network
The Men in the Shadows
It is not Islamists or members of the military or the old elite that pose a threat to the Turkish state. Its real enemies operate under cover, as Ahmet Altan, one of the country's most successful authors, explains

"Ergenekon" Network in Turkey
On a Subversive Mission
86 members of the Turkish nationalist secret society Ergenekon have been in the dock since last October, accused of planning to overthrow Prime Minister Erdogan. The Kemalist opposition, however, alleges the case is a legal witch-hunt to silence the government's critics. Ömer Erzeren has the details