An analogy of ‘marketplace’ by two prominent scholars, Snyder&Ballentine, would be appropriate to start with since this article is mainly related to this very basic idea; “Just as economic competition produces socially beneficial results, only in a well-institutionalized marketplace, where monopolies and false advertising are counteracted, so too increased debate in the political marketplace leads to better outcomes only when there are mechanisms to correct market imperfections”.

 

Breaking up the so-called ‘information monopolies’ requires professionalized journalism and public forums where diverse ideas engage each other and where erroneous arguments are challenged. The marketplace in that sense is comprised of mass communication –like television and newspapers, networks of face-to-face persuasion –generally called public sphere, elite publications and discourse generating ideas –in turn, to be challenged and to which this article is intended to serve.    

The key –and early, findings of a study, directed by Prof. Yılmaz Esmer of the Bahçesehir University (Istanbul) titled ‘Public Attitudes Towards Diversity, Tolerance and Extremism in Turkey’ were shared in a conference open to public and the media, on May 30. The study was conducted in 34 cities between April 12 and May 3.

 

The findings, already widely publicized in the media, clearly suggested –once again- that Turks had a very low tolerance for diverse lifestyles in general, and for gender equality in particular. A majority of Turks (57 percent) support their government's bid to join the European Union, but controversially, three out of four Turks believe the EU is trying to divide Turkey and 81 percent believe EU's goal is to spread Christianity. Yet, one out of four Turks thinks that Turkey is either already a full member of the EU or is unsure of its status. Religious extremism was seen as a danger to Turkey by 69 percent of respondents.

 

Three of the key findings which were totally overlooked by the media were that; Turkish public in general prefer evolution to status quo and status quo to revolution; survival values rule over self-expression values in the contemporary Turkish society, and there is a ‘negative’ (and strong) correlation between religiosity at one hand and the tolerance and gender (read woman) equality on the other.

Looking at the substance of discussions that took place in the conference room –and the way discussions were held, along with the fashion they were ‘reported’ in the media, I doubt if the results were held up to rigorous enough scrutiny by competitors and expert evaluators –both by those available in the conference room and by those represented in the media.

 

In newly democratizing states, like Turkey, competition is imperfect and oligopolistic elites, by targeting niche markets, exploit partial media monopolies in intense competition to win mass support in a segmented market. Such an environment creates an ‘illusion’ of market pluralism and free choice of ideas and by eliminating skepticism, magnifies the effects of partial monopolies of supply, making oligopolistic propaganda more effective than even under pure monopoly. Partial monopoly over supply of ideas and segmentation of the demand due to the audiences’ dispositions, are also typical of early stages of democratization.

 

When propaganda can link a new idea to attitudes that a target audience already holds –because it is segmented following linguistic, ethnic, communal lines, it is most effective. We are just witnessing that, yet again, in the Turkish media. Measures that could be taken –through centralized or decentralized regulation- to correct the flaws in media institutions and norms are not the subject of this article. However we value a free market of ideas, ‘idea-pooling’, as Horowitz once put it, ‘through integrative public forums, breaking down the boundaries between exclusive imagined communities’. (1) Let’s focus on some selected themes from the study and discussions on them..

Social trust –trust in other people, political trust –trust in political authorities, political participation –ranging from vote-casting to active grass-roots involvement, and civic engagement –people’s connections with the life of their communities, although logically quite distinct, are empirically closely related. These mainly fall under the theory of ‘social capital’ which was touched upon by Prof. Esmer himself during the question and answer period, was conceptually missing from the study. If this was not the case it should have been reflected in the underlying ‘hyphoteses’ and/or sub-hyphoteses which were also missing, as rightly pointed out by Prof. Jack Snyder (Columbia University). He also highlighted relevant concepts of group identity, self-interest, political context, and the difference between ‘attitudes’ and ‘facts’. Indeed, ‘perception of corruption’, perception of ‘unfair/unjust’ treatment by life/society/employer/state, isolated communal life which came with urbanization and which increased conservatism in general would all be relevant, particularly in Turkish context.  

 

Also related to these are the ‘meanings’ of terms such as democracy, extremism, religiosity and perhaps above all ‘secularism’, a subject raised by Prof. Mike Hardy (of the British Council, who also elaborated the subjects of ‘relative deprevation, access and opportunity, culture and religion, conflict and security in explaning the vitally important process of ‘radicalization’. Of course these meanings are essential for effective academic discourse, as are points of reference for soldiers in the field or lighthouses for sailors, for not getting lost in the jungle of concepts.

 

The meaning or perception of ‘extremism’ was left to ‘samples’ said Prof. Esmer. But doesn’t that mean that the survey results were left to random and ‘subjective’ probability, with a risk of ruining the study alltogether. If in the description of ‘extremism’ –by samples- emotional approach was dominant, as pointed out again by Prof. Esmer, shouldn’t the survey have been designed to eliminate this probability?

 

Or in the question of ‘if anti-democratic ideas/views and initiatives are constituting serious threat for Turkey?’; what is the meaning of 81 percent ‘Yes’ unless we are certain of the common meaning of ‘democracy’ as perceived by the populace? Or how can one properly include (to what end?) ‘ideas/views’ within the same sentence with ‘initiatives’ -while even ‘initiatives’ by itself is so ambiguous?

Putnam, the champion of the notion of ‘social capital’, consistently argued that ‘the more we connect with other people, the more we trust them, and vice versa’. “Education by far the strongest correlate that I have discovered of civic engagement in all its forms, including social trust and membership in many different types of groups. ..(Even) when income, social status and education are used together to predict trust and group membership, education continues to be the primary influence”. (2) Education perhaps in that sense, plays a fundamental role by providing ‘participation’ hence causing trust.

 

Lipset also wrote, about half a century ago, on the clear correlation between education, tolerance, extremism –and socio-economic equality. His views are worth quoting here at some length;

 

“From Aristotle down to the present, man have argued that only in a wealthy society in which relatively few citizens lived at the level of real powerty could there be a situation in which the mass of the population intelligently participate in politics and develop the self-restraint necessary to avoid succumbing to the appeals of irressistable demagogues. Education broadens man’s outlook, enables him to understand the need for norms of tolerance, restrains him from adhering to extremist doctrins, and increases his capacity to make rational electoral choices”. (3)

 

Prof. Esmer stated, based on the findings of his own survey, that ‘tolerance’ increases with the level of education. But why the literate and the illiterate join (for different reasons?) in perceiving EU and USA as hostile (to say the least) or why Turkish people see ‘education’ as the panacea for all the world’s ills, need to be ‘explained’. Speculating on that, that ‘the Turkish education system brought about no difference at all’ perhaps was a conclusion too readily jumped upon –not an explanation.

 

Forty-one percent said they want to see Turkey become an EU member, while 16 percent said they want very much to see Turkey in the European Union. However, 80 percent of respondents said they believe no matter what Turkey does, the EU would not accept it as a member. But why and how did this happen, why do they think so? "At least the U.S. has succeeded in having the secular and religious circles agree on one thing," said Esmer. Perhaps they did not agree at all..?

 

Responding to ‘which was of priority to them’; 62 percent chose ‘religion’, 16 percent ‘secularism’, 13 percent ‘democracy’, 5 percent ‘ethnic identity’, 4 percent ‘enough income’. The meaning of secularism alone has been one of the most hotly debated subjects of the history of the Turkish Republic. Prof. Binnaz Toprak, in response to a question, ‘explained’ it as a set of behavior reflecting non-religious attitudes which was –probably rightly- challenged by some in the audience, and Prof. Snyder touched the subject by drawing parallels with other countries as it is practised as a constitutional concept. How can one be certain or confident enough of the common and correct perception of these concepts by a randomly selected group?

 

Measuring gender equality, based on answers to questions on ‘employment opportunities’ and ‘priorities’ between male and female population makes sense. But are the perceptions of the behavior of women only (not men) in beach or observance of ‘religious’ dress code really –primarily- related to gender equality?

 

Again in responding to questions Prof. Esmer mentioned of ‘generational’ and ‘cohort’ (probably two different words for the same phenomena) effects; but what about ‘life cycle’ and ‘period’ (zeitgeist, the spirit of the time..?) effects, especially the latter for the purposes of this specific study?

There has been an increasing trend in similar international conferences to squeeze as many speakers as possible into one conference, limiting presentations to 10 minutes (sometimes even less) and even not letting questions be asked. The former occurred in a recent conference in Ankara (Turks Abroad: the Symposium on Migration and Integration in its 50th Year. 21-23 May) and the latter in another symposium in İstanbul (International Strategy and Security Studies Symposium). It is understandable that once invitations are out and accepted by more than the originally anticipated number of guests it is difficult to say “do not come or be prepared not to speak”. But this must be avoided at all costs because such occurrences are so detrimental to attracting participation.

 

Secondly it is difficult to understand how one decides traveling long distances and still cannot plan for time to answer questions and has to race to his/her flight direct from the table or floor, luggage in hand. It must be torturous for the lecturer and probably represents –albeit unintended, disrespect for the audience.

 

Thirdly, for some reason if one or more lecturers are absent it should not be an obligation to fill the space at the last minute, and particularly if she will apologize for the last minute announcement and lack of preparations. Why not using the time unexpectedly made available for giving more time to speakers and participants alike?

Before finishing let’s note the interesting discussion by Prof. Adam Seligman of the Boston University (who also stressed the importance of ‘explanations’) on confidence and trust which deserves a seperate article.

 

And finally, with all due respect, wouldn’t it be better, nicer and of higher academic quality, rather than rushing the study, ‘with less sleep for days’, to the media now, before the end of the academic year -and summer holidays, if Prof. Esmer was allowed more time to produce some meaningful explanations for which he is perfectly capable of and then move this conference to Fall? In my ‘consumer’ shoes I would opt for the latter.

 

In order to overcome the urge by the ‘market’ forces, we ‘all’ need to do something, but above all, in struggling to balance diverging pulls, we need to decide demands of which market we are giving priority for supply. We embrace the idea of the marketplace of ‘ideas’, demand for the better as consumers and humbly attempted to contribute as suppliers; after all, isn’t this what think-tanks are for?

 

* Title inspired by; Jack Snyder and Karen Ballentine, ‘Nationalism and the Marketplace of Ideas’. International Security 21. No.2 (Fall 1996) pp.5-40

(1) Donald Horowitz (1992); ‘A Democratic South Africa? Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society’.  

(2) Robert Putnam; ‘Tuning in Tuning Out: the Strange Disappearence of Social Capital in America’. Political Science and Politics (December 1995). pp.664-83.

(3) Seymour Martin Lipset (1960); ‘Economic Development and Democracy’, in Political Man. pp.31-51.