At the end of last week, Turkey celebrated the 10th anniversary of the death of a man whose influence on its modern political history can hardly be overestimated — Necmettin Erbakan. Three years ago, on the occasion of the 7th anniversary of his death, a text was published on «Voice of Islam», which can be recommended to those who did not read it then (https://golosislama.com/news.php?id=33981). Many of its provisions are still relevant today, especially in the area of foreign policy. Some may seem outdated, but in 2021, as the 10th anniversary of Erbakan’s death approaches, there is a different political situation that forces us to discuss other aspects of his legacy and the struggle for it.
A commemoration of this date, organized by Erbakan’s colleagues from the Virtue Party (Saadet), was attended by representatives of almost all of the country’s major parties, From the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to opposition parties such as the Republican People’s Party (CHP), the Good Party (İYİ Parti), the Future Party (Gelecek Partisi), the Democracy and Progress Party (Deva Party) and even the Kurdish neo-communist People’s Democratic Party (HDP). The only major party that ignored the event was the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), an ally of Erdogan.
However, the speeches of the representatives and leaders of these parties indicate that there are two competing views of Erbakan’s legacy today. The first is represented by the current president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who did not attend the event but sent a message together with the deputy chairman of his party, Mahir Ünal. It is worth noting that Erdogan himself was a student of Erbakan and his comrade in the movement they founded, Millî Görüş (National Vision) and the banned Welfare Party (Refah Partisi). Erdogan was arrested after the 1997 coup that overthrew Erbakan’s government, even though he had been elected mayor of Istanbul on that party’s ticket. Later, their paths diverged — while Erbakan openly called for Turkey’s withdrawal from NATO and the creation of an Islamic Union, Erdogan formed a new party in 2001 that proclaimed the goal of Turkey’s accession to the EU and its continued membership in NATO, allowing him not only to take power but also to retain it, unlike his teacher, who succeeded in the former but failed in the latter.
However, having resolved this issue, Erdogan can now position himself as the heir to the true spirit of Millî Görüş’s ideas. In his speech, he not only praised the merits of his teacher, but also emphasized that he has realized his dream of returning the Hagia Sophia to the Muslims and that he intends to continue implementing the program goals outlined by Erbakan for Turkey and the Islamic world until 2053. In this context, it is worth mentioning that Erdogan recently met with one of the leaders of Erbakan’s current party, Saadet, Oğuzhan Asiltürk, apparently to discuss the possibility of joining the ruling coalition of AKP and MHP. Subsequently, several representatives of these parties made public appeals to this effect.
One might have expected Erbakan’s party members to move toward this reunification, especially in the midst of the confrontation between pro-Islamic forces and the LGBT movement around Boğaziçi University, in which a significant part of the secular opposition sided with the latter (https://golosislama.com/news.php?id=39545). However, the tone of many leaders’ speeches at this event dedicated to Erbakan’s memory raised more doubts than before. On the one hand, the leader of Saadet, Temel Karamollaoğlu, clearly pointed out in his speech that the true successors of Millî Görüş’s ideas today are only the members of his party, effectively rejecting Erdogan’s claims in this regard. On the other hand, he juxtaposed the spirit of Erbakan’s ideas, which advocated social justice, with the reality of the monopoly of power and economy, which clearly appeared as an accusation against the ruling party.
The speeches of the representatives of the other opposition parties were also significant and their tone was in line with that of the leaders of Saadet, who were critical of the current government. The representative of Kemalist ideas, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, who praised Erbakan for not dividing the country despite his party’s prohibition and for his impeccably polite manner of dialogue and debate, clearly appeared as a contrast to his disciple. Even representatives of the Kurdish neo-communist HDP noted Erbakan’s willingness to engage in dialogue with the Kurds, which, given Erdogan’s threats to ban this party, seemed like an effort to demonstrate the difference between the teacher and the student on these issues.
The same sentiment was shared by two former allies of Erdogan and members of his party who left it to form their own opposition parties — Ahmet Davutoğlu, who leads the Future Party, and Ali Babacan, who leads the Deva Party. Like other speakers, they called for more freedom, transparency and competitiveness in the Turkish political system and a return to a parliamentary system. All these voices formed a chorus, giving the impression that Erbakan’s legacy today is the legacy of a broad opposition coalition that, despite internal contradictions, stands together against the authoritarian tendencies of the current government.
Thus, ten years after Erbakan’s death, two different views of his legacy are apparent. According to the first view, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his ruling coalition of AKP and MHP are the true heirs of his mission to revive Islamic identity and Turkey’s mission, despite their personal conflicts and divergent political tactics. According to the second view, the true heirs of Erbakan’s mission, such as Erbakan himself as well as former allies of Erdogan like Davutoğlu and Babacan, are currently in the opposition and are more likely to support the secular opposition than the pro-Islamic power, which they accuse of not adhering to the spirit of Erbakan’s ideas.
Ultimately, both opposing sides believe that their disagreements revolve around principles and opportunism. However, while the first side believes that ideological principles are paramount and political methods should be subordinated to them, the second side believes that there are means that do not justify the end and distort it. And it seems that this difference will be manifested more than once and not only in Turkey. (In the photo — Ali Babacan, Ahmet Davutoğlu, Temel Karamollaoğlu, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu in front of a portrait of Necmettin Erbakan)