Erbakan has finally passed on.

He put his stamp on at least forty years of our political life. His foes were as numerous as his friends. On the topic of Turkish Islamism he represented a first in many things. However much it is desired to put him within conservative parenthesis, he spread a universal Islamic ideology on a broad base and established his politics on this.
While, on the one hand, trying to consciously load a historical perspective on his own society to inoculate them with self-confidence, on the other hand, with this motivation he pursued his claim of being the leading country to world Muslims.

Undoubtedly the D-8 project was one of his attempts to put his ideal of solidarity among Muslims into concrete form. The most unfortunate aspect of this project was his setting out with leaders left over from imperialism who were very far from this ideal in respect to mindset or state formation, far from thinking independently and alienated from their people. Even if Erbakan had no other choice, he was in a position to continue on his way as an influential politician seeking action.

One of those he invited to the D-8 on behalf of his ideal of joining powers in the Islamic world was Hosni Mubarak of Egypt who is no longer Egypt’s leader today. He died to politics a short time before Erbakan’s death.

In order to form a foundation for this project, he made a trip to Egypt, Libya and Nigeria which I followed. It was at a time when the footsteps of the February 28th coup were beginning to be heard and when, on the one hand, generals and, on the other hand, generals without epaulets and the media were trying to strangle Erbakan politically by utilizing every opportunity. In other words, it was a time when preparations for a postmodern coup were proceeding step by step.

There had been a crisis with Gaddafi and this greatly strengthened the hand of the Kemalist elite in Turkey. Turgut Özal and Tansu Çiller had also experienced diplomatic crises due to Gaddafi, but the media covered them up so as not to humiliate the government.

The morale of the delegation was extremely down, and the tension they would meet in Ankara after the return from Nigeria was already reflected by the delegates. They appeared solemn and had already surrendered to the negative psychological atmosphere.

In this setting on the long return trip from Nigeria to Ankara, Erbakan Hodja made a statement. It was as if all media members had pinned Hodja in a corner and were eagerly waiting for him to make a new mistake.

Having remained silent throughout the trip, Hodja, with full self-confidence, began to explain how successful this trip to these three countries had been in every respect. While journalists were watching this attitude of confidence half-amazed and half-confused, I could sense the obvious change in the attitudes of the general staff around him.

Erbakan Hodja was explaining that economic agreements had been signed and that brotherhood ties had been strengthened; whereas, there had been a complete diplomatic disaster in Libya. Gaddafi’s known conceitedness and tactlessness had been manifested in a way so as to make a shock effect on Turkey.

And Hodja continued, “In addition, this trip has been successful politically, because again friendly efforts have served to eliminate misunderstandings between brother countries.”
It was as if Hodja was trying to push a car that had slid downhill back to its place at the top of the road.

At that moment the look of satisfaction on the faces of those around him was a sign of where the Hodja’s charisma came from.

This event was a rare moment for unraveling the Hodja’s political stance and identity. As prime minister the Hodja could have defended himself before this diplomatic scandal created by Gaddafi by criticizing his opponent and he had enough opportunity to do so. However, doing just the opposite to attacking Gaddafi, in the name of “Muslim brotherhood” which he had been trying to weave for years, he purposely avoided language that would undermine his ideal of brotherhood and unity. His doing the opposite would have meant that one of the pillars of the politics he had established would be destroyed. While both taking events under his own control and using all political opportunities not to take a backward step in regard to the ideals he advocated, he always maintained his attitude of self-confidence even though perhaps it was exaggerated. In regard to understanding Erbakan, this Gaddafi example is like a summary of his forty years of political life.

He persistently pursued his ideals and followed his cause even at the expense of forcing the facts. His method and style can be debated, but the goals he put forth in rough outline have not yet been able to be surpassed.

Ýlgili YazýlarDünya, English, Siyaset