Papersera.net

Posto questi due articoli uno da Il Sole 24 ORE e l'altro da LASTAMPA, perche' servono ad illustrare quello che e' il piu' grande problema della Turchia: un nazionalismo xenofobo che per giunta negli ultimi anni ha assunto un colore di natura islamica, essendo la religione una delle cose di cui la gente in mala fede abusa per i propri fini.

Tra Joseph e Benedetto le radici cristiane si persero per strada


• da Il Riformista del 30 novembre 2006, pag. 1


di Averroè e Jansenius

E’ forse ancora troppo presto per fare un bilancio, quasi preventivo, del viaggio del Papa in Turchia. Ma forse si può già dire che esso già appare costituire una svolta decisiva, forse epocale, in quella che, anche se impropriamente, viene chiamata la “politica” della Chiesa.

 

 Anzitutto deve essere messo in rilievo che se il Papa, e un Papa tedesco e per di più bavarese, ha voluto, coraggiosamente, nonostante tutti i segnali contrari, questo viaggio, dimostrando il massimo della umiltà diplomatica andando perfino a rendere visita, lui, il Papa della Chiesa cattolica e il sovrano dello Stato della Città del Vaticano, a un funzionario religioso del governo, suo grande critico (ve lo immaginate Benedetto XVI in visita al Quirinale e contemporaneamente al direttore generale degli affari del culto del ministero dell’Interno?), grande deve essere l’obiettivo che lui si è posto. Questa che sembrava essere occasionalmente una visita alla Repubblica turca, ma in realtà una visita tutta pastorale alla piccola e martirizzata comunità cattolica di quel Paese, e soprattutto una visita ecumenica al Patriarca di Costantinopoli, «primus inter pares» nella Santa Chiesa Ortodossa, nostra Sorella, è in realtà un viaggio a un forte e moderno Stato islamico, mentre si attenua assai con un governo islamista il carattere laico e quasi laicista impressogli dal suo fondatore Atatürk, massone, e rinasce lo spirito islamico originario, e la Turchia ritorna ad essere parte dell’Umma.

 Anni fa Joseph Ratzinger, cardinale, dichiarò essere contrario all’ingresso nell’Unione Europea della Turchia, perché «estranea» ai valori e alle radici all’Europa, da lui evidentemente considerata ancora come una cittadella cristiana.

 

 Con l’auspicio e l’aiuto promesso all’ingresso della Turchia nell’Unione Europea, si abbandona di fatto l’idea di una Europa ancora contrassegnata dalle sue antiche radici cristiane. Ma vi è di più, contro il laicismo dilagante europeo, il cattolicesimo, religione monoteista e rivelata, contro il laicismo e per la difesa di comuni valori naturali e rivelati, e la Chiesa cercano l’alleanza dell’islam, nel momento in cui cresce l’islamizzazione dell’Europa e dell’Italia.  

 

Cristianesimo e islam alleati nel nome del Dio comune di Abra­mo, Isacco e Giacobbe, Cristo e Maometto, hanno in una visione neoconfessionale dell'Europa, grandi possibilità di fronteggiare con i loro grandi e comuni valori naturali e rivelati il laicismo che minac­cia di dominare l'Europa: moschee e chiese, campanili e minareti, la Croce e la Mezzaluna, possono ergersi e dominare le università lai-che monumenti del neo-illuminismo e del «laicismo trionfante».

Certo, da questa prospettiva viene messo in ombra il rapporto tra cristianesimo ed ebraismo, ma realisticamente quest'ultimo ha perso la sua forza propulsiva per essersi ampiamente laicizzato e per essersi ormai compromesso con l'israelismo.

 

Se è così, la Nuova Crociata sarà alleata della Rinascita islami­ca, e i «nuovi infedeli» non saranno più per i cristiani gli islamici e per gli islamici i cristiani, ma per entrambi i laicisti. E così il noto teo­logo si dimostrerà un grande politico, il politico della «politica del­l'unico Dio, onnipotente e misericordioso».    

Preoccupante...

Risposta al post di Gio, che non volevo quotare nel solito modo per risparmiare spazio:

1) Prima di tutto una noterella di natura metodologica: Gio, mi pare di capire che il commento finale ("Preoccupante...") sia tuo, ma non sono sicuro, se e' tuo dovresti indicare meglio la differenza tra testo originale e commento personale. Se il commento non e' tuo, non prendere in considerazione questa noterella.

2) Io non ci vedo niente di preoccupante che il mondo dei credenti, indipendentemente dalla religione, collabori nell'ambito del dibattito sul ruolo della spiritualita' in una societa moderna. O volevi che accettassimo le tue verita' "assolute", che non vale la pena di dibattere, perche' tanto sono state "scientificamente provate".  Naturalmente e' chiaro che tale dibattito debba avvenire nell'ambito di un contesto democratico, dove ci si rispetta a vicenda.

3) Nonostante sia vero che in Turchia le comunita' Cristiane soffrono di un certo grado di discriminazione di natura burocratica (esempi lampanti che avevo gia' citato in un mio post precedente sono le difficolta' legate alle proprieta' delle fondazioni religiose, e il fatto che il seminario Greco-Ortodosso sia chiuso), il termine "martirizzate" mi sembra un po' esagerato.  Naturalmente non voglio neanche prendere alla leggera l'uccisione di Don Santoro, nel qual caso si e' proprio trattato di martirio.  Chi scrive queste righe e' di madre Cattolica ed e' sempre vissuto insieme alla comunita' Cristiana di Istanbul.

1) Prima di tutto una noterella di natura metodologica: Gio, mi pare di capire che il commento finale ("Preoccupante...") sia tuo, ma non sono sicuro, se e' tuo dovresti indicare meglio la differenza tra testo originale e commento personale. Se il commento non e' tuo, non prendere in considerazione questa noterella.

Il commento è mio, e credo che riassuma bene il senso dell'articolo.

O volevi che accettassimo le tue verita' "assolute", che non vale la pena di dibattere, perche' tanto sono state "scientificamente provate".  .

..stai scherzando vero?  

Il Papa fulminato sulla via di Istanbul
 Pier Paolo Caserta,  01 dicembre 2006

Riflessioni     Con la visita in Turchia, Benedetto XVI sembra aver virato verso una politica religiosa più conciliante e aperta al dialogo. Dopo lo strappo di Ratisbona, forse è predominata la necessità di porre rimedio



Bisogna essere onesti: Benedetto XVI ha dimostrato un'inedita abilità comunicativa nel muoversi in un terreno a dir poco accidentato e concludere in modo positivo una visita che partiva con lo sfavore di tutti i pronostici. Ma soprattutto ha saputo vincere la scommessa più difficile, quella di attenuare i toni dottrinari per toccare corde più intime. I commenti elogiativi della stampa turca, pressoché unanime, testimoniano di un riavvicinamento e di un dialogo recuperato, dopo la grande tensione seguita al discorso di Ratisbona.
Se si deve dargliene atto, d'altra parte non è nemmeno il caso di incensare troppo chi, in effetti, ha anzitutto rimediato ai propri errori. Piuttosto, vale la pena di osservare che questo capolavoro diplomatico non è potuto avvenire se non a costo di ripensamenti (contraddizioni?) tanto plateali quanto inevitabili.

Per la visita in Turchia il Vaticano ha messo in atto una vera e propria strategia di comunicazione differenziata. Doveva essere una visita pastorale e non politica. E in larga parte lo è stata, dall'omaggio reso al mausoleo di Ataturk, padre della Turchia moderna, che è stato il primo, doveroso impegno ufficiale, fino alla storica visita alla Moschea Blu, passando per il santuario mariano di Efeso e per l'incontro col patriarca ortodosso Bartolomeo I.

Ma è inevitabile che le dichiarazioni del papa abbiano anche una valenza politica. Ce l'hanno, a volte, anche quando non parla di politica. A maggior ragione se Benedetto XVI spezza una lancia in favore dell'ingresso della Turchia nell'Unione Europea, con buona pace di quella vecchia storia delle radici cristiane dell'Europa.
Lo stesso messaggio è stato lanciato nel pomeriggio di martedì, primo giorno della visita, da padre Lombardi, direttore della sala stampa vaticana, affermando che "la Santa Sede non ha né il potere né il compito politico specifico di intervenire" sulla questione dell'ingresso della Turchia nell'Unione Europea; ma "vede positivamente e incoraggia il cammino di dialogo, avvicinamento e inserimento in Europa sulla base di valori e principi comuni".

Radici cristiane dell'Europa? Quando mai. Del resto, tra Cristianesimo e Islam non esiste incompatibilità, perché i fedeli dell'una religione come dell'altra credono nell'unico Dio, sebbene ciascuno secondo la propria tradizione - ha dichiarato Benedetto XVI. Encomiabile slancio relativistico ma, appunto, quell'acerrima battaglia contro il relativismo, che fine ha fatto? Roba superata, a quanto pare.

È stato un evento certamente non privo di una specifica rilevanza storica, e più avanti, forse ci troveremo a ragionare dell'importanza che questa visita pontificia potrebbe aver rivestito per l'entrata nella Turchia nell'Unione Europea e del contributo portato al dialogo interculturale; e magari persino del fatto che l'incidente di Ratisbona abbia comunque potuto rappresentare una via per aprire il dialogo.
Intanto, gli esiti raggiunti dovrebbero farci davvero piacere, perché della pari dignità e della compatibilità tra religioni e culture noi siamo da sempre convinti assertori, come anche della necessità di riconoscere i molteplici influssi che formano l'anima composita dell'Europa.
Ora parrebbe che se ne sia convinto anche Benedetto XVI (ma che immane fatica deve aver fatto). Accogliamo dunque il miracolo con prudente compiacimento. Deve essere proprio vero: Dio esiste ed è buono!


http://www.aprileonline.info/896/il-papa-fulminato-sulla-via-di-istanbul

Riassumo il dibattito: Possiamo essere ottimisti, il futuro si preannuncia roseo.  

Riassumo il dibattito: Possiamo essere ottimisti, il futuro si preannuncia roseo.  

E cosa vedi di roseo?

E cosa vedi di roseo?

1) Maggiore comprensione reciproca tra Turchia ed Europa.

2) Un ulteriore sollecito perche' la Turchia migliori la situazione dei diritti umani.

1) Maggiore comprensione reciproca tra Turchia ed Europa.

2) Un ulteriore sollecito perche' la Turchia migliori la situazione dei diritti umani.

Sì ok, mi auguro per la Turchia che così accada.

Ma ricordiamoci che Ratzinger non è il portavoce dell'Europa, e nemmeno l'unico vero difensore dei diritti umani (anzi..).

Per chi e' interessato, articolo sull'economist,

link:

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8820431

e testo integrale:

Waving Ataturk's flag
Mar 8th 2007 | ISTANBUL AND WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

There has been a lethal upsurge in ultra-nationalist feeling in Turkey
AFP

SITTING in an office plastered with Ottoman pennants, portraits of Ataturk and the Turkish flag, Kemal Kerincsiz, a lawyer, says his mission in life is to protect the Turkish nation from “Western imperialism and global forces that want to dismember and destroy us”. In the past two years Mr Kerincsiz and his Turkish Jurists' Union have launched a slew of cases against Turkish intellectuals under article 301 of the penal code, which makes “insulting Turkishness” a criminal offence.

Mr Kerincsiz has confined his nationalism to the courts. But elsewhere new ultra-nationalist groups, some of them led by retired army officers, have been vowing over guns and copies of the Koran to make Turks “the masters of the world” and even “to die and kill” in the process. In January one of Mr Kerincsiz's targets, a Turkish-Armenian newspaper editor, Hrant Dink, was shot dead by a 17-year-old, Ogun Samast, because he had “insulted the Turks”. The murder, in broad daylight on one of Istanbul's busiest streets, was a chilling manifestation of a resurgence of xenophobic nationalism aimed at Turkey's non-Muslim minorities and the Kurds—plus their defenders in the liberal elite.

The upsurge threatens to undo the good of four years of reforms by the mildly Islamist government led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Indeed, it is partly in response to these reforms—more freedom for the Kurds, a trimming of the army's powers, concessions on Cyprus—that nationalist passions have been roused. The knowledge that many members of the European Union do not want Turkey to join has inflamed them further (the EU partially suspended membership talks with Turkey in December because of its refusal to open its ports and airspace to Greek-Cypriots).

Another factor is America's refusal to move against separatist PKK guerrillas who are based in northern Iraq. If the United States Congress delivers its pledge to adopt a resolution calling the mass slaughter of the Ottoman Armenians in 1915 genocide, Turkey's relationship with its ally would suffer “lasting damage”, says the foreign minister, Abdullah Gul.

Murat Belge, a leftist intellectual who is being hounded by Mr Kerincsiz, sees disturbing similarities between the racist nationalism espoused by the “Young Turks” in the dying days of the Ottoman empire (who ordered the mass slaughter of its Armenian subjects), and the siege mentality gripping Turkey today. The perception, now as then, is that Western powers are pressing for changes to empower their local collaborators (ie, Kurds and non-Muslims), with the aim of breaking up the country. “This social Darwinist mindset that implies it's OK to kill your enemies in order to survive” has been perpetuated through an education system that tells young Turks that “they have no other friend than the Turks,” says Mr Belge. And it has been cynically exploited by politicians and generals alike.

Mr Erdogan and Deniz Baykal, the leader of the opposition Republican People's Party, have proved no exception. When more than 100,000 Turks gathered at Mr Dink's funeral chanting “We are all Armenians”, Mr Erdogan opined that they had gone “too far”. Both he and Mr Baykal have resisted calls to scrap article 301, though there have been hints that it will be amended.

The politicians are keen to court nationalist votes in the run-up to November's parliamentary election. Mr Erdogan also hopes that burnishing his nationalist credentials will help him to coax a blessing from Turkey's hawkish generals for his hopes of succeeding the fiercely secular Ahmet Necdet Sezer as president in May.

Yet a recent outburst by the chief of the general staff, Yasar Buyukanit, suggests otherwise. He declared that Turkey faced more threats to its national security than at any time in its modern history and added that only its “dynamic forces” [ie, the army] could prevent efforts to “partition the country”. These words, uttered during an official trip to America, were widely seen as a direct warning to Mr Erdogan to shelve his presidential ambitions.

Others do not rule out possible collusion between nationalist elements within the army and retired officers who are organising new ultra-nationalist groups (one is said to be training nationalist youths in Trabzon, where Dink's alleged murderers came from). “The real purpose is to sow chaos, to polarise society so they can regain ground [lost with the EU reforms],” argues Belma Akcura, an investigative journalist whose recent book about rogue security forces known as the “deep state” earned her a three-month jail sentence. It would not be surprising if their next target were a nationalist, she adds.

Meanwhile prominent writers and academics, including Mr Belge, continue to be bombarded with death threats. Some are under police protection. Orhan Pamuk, the Nobel prize-winning author whom Mr Kerincsiz took to court over his comments about the persecution of the Armenians and the Kurds, has fled to New York.

Where will matters go from here? This week one court banned access to YouTube after clips calling Ataturk gay appeared on it; and another sentenced a Kurdish politician to six months' jail for giving the PKK leader, Abdullah Ocalan, an honorific Mr. But a private television station also withdrew a popular series, “The Valley of the Wolves”, that glorifies gun-toting nationalists who mow down their mainly Kurdish enemies, after the channel was inundated with calls for the show's axing. The battle for Turkey's soul is not over yet.

Sì ok, mi auguro per la Turchia che così accada.

Per la Turchia ma anche per l'Europa e per un più generale dialogo interculturale

Ma ricordiamoci che Ratzinger non è il portavoce dell'Europa, e nemmeno l'unico vero difensore dei diritti umani (anzi..).

Per fortuna la prima, per la seconda, come dici tu, non è proprio la prima persona che ne possa parlare..

non è proprio la prima persona che ne possa parlare..

E meno male che almeno su questo siamo d'accordo... Sfido chiunque ad avere la faccia tosta di affermare il contrario.

Articolo sulla Turchia:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID19Ak01.html

E testo integrale:

What Turkey teaches about democracy  
By M K Bhadrakumar

Last Saturday night, Orange Blossom, the rising star of European dance music, gave an open-air concert in Istanbul, the city of heart's desires. The French band, which played a mix of European electro-beat, West African polyrhythm, haunting Arabic and Middle Eastern melodies and all-stops-out rock, underscored that it knew no borders.

Orange Blossom was on a European tour presenting its latest album, Everything must change. Turks were dazzled.

Only a few hours earlier the Turkish capital of Ankara had witnessed a historic public rally attended by anywhere up to half a million people from all walks of life. Like Orange Blossom, it, too, was "multicultural", comprising political forces of the left and right, including the ultra-right, nationalistic "Grey Wolves".

But, unlike the French band, it called for status quo in Turkish political life. The rally demanded that the borders of the Turkish state system and its unique political culture remain immutable and sacrosanct. Nothing must change. The rallyists chanted, "We do not want an imam in Cankaya [the presidential palace]." At times, they struck a strident anti-Western, anti-globalization tone, calling for a "national awakening".

They chanted, "Don't be silent, or you'll lose your homeland." They exhorted the nation to nip in the bud the possibility that the incumbent prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, might be edging closer to announcing his candidacy for Turkey's forthcoming presidential election. Erdogan, they alleged, represented the "looming Islamic threat" to the secular state of Turkey.

Erdogan and the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) calmly reacted to the political affront. He complimented the rally for its peaceful nature, and appreciated that sections of Turkish opinion were "just using their democratic right". He could have contended that the bottom line in any functioning democracy lay in the will of a lawfully elected Parliament representing the collective aspirations of the Turkish people. But the Islamist leader decided that discretion was the better part of valor.

No sooner had the dust settled in Ankara than he flew to Berlin for a summit meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Erdogan was on a tough mission to try to resuscitate the moribund accession talks between Turkey and the European Union (whose rotating presidency currently lies with Germany). Erdogan made it very clear in Berlin that Turkey had no option but to be part of the European family, no matter how long its EU accession was delayed.

Kemal Mustafa "Ataturk" would have been pleased with the Islamist leader's tenacity in pressing the case for Turkey's destiny in Europe. On his return to Ankara on Wednesday, Erdogan proposes to meet some of the opposition political parties, chair a cabinet meeting, and then address the AKP's central decision-making executive committee regarding the party's candidate for the presidency. It is conceivable that Erdogan may be the AKP's candidate for the presidency. Or, a fallback could be that he might nominate a candidate from the AKP. Erdogan, in essence, will make his choice keeping in view the imperative of the AKP's cohesion as the country's largest political party.

The 85-year-old Turkish state finds itself at a crossroads. But the implications of Erdogan's final choice go far beyond Turkey's borders. Turkey's standing as a regional powerhouse, its strategic location as a bridge between Europe and the Middle East, its historical and cultural heritage in the Muslim world - all these are bound to come into play in the coming months. Meanwhile, Turkey is working itself into a state of frenzy. Commenting on Saturday's rally, the establishment newspaper Turkish Daily News threatened that even if Erdogan was elected president, he wouldn't be allowed to govern in peace.

The daily posed in strident rhetoric, "It was vividly demonstrated [on Saturday] that the silent masses of this country did not want someone incompatible with the secularist principle of the republic in the presidential palace. It was underlined in all clarity that even if someone who does not necessarily represent the "full independence spirit" of the Kemalist doctrine; who may not defend adequately the "honor of the nation"; who rather than science considers theology as his guide; who rather than carrying Turkey to the level of advanced democracies aspires for the re-introduction of sheikhs, brotherhoods and the sharia order is elected as the president of this country, he will not be able to sit comfortably on the presidential seat."

In blunt terms, the daily warned the prime minister and the ruling party, "Having a majority in Parliament does not necessarily empower them to stage whatever they want in whatever fashion they want in this country ... if somehow because of the parliamentary conjecture, someone who is incompatible with the norms of a modern secular democratic republic is to become the new tenant of the presidential mansion ... Turks will gather again in Ankara and force a civilian transfer of the seat of the founder of modern Turkey to someone eligible for that position."

But, in fairness, not all Turkish commentators sounded so arrogant. Some have also pointed out that the self-styled "Kemalist" stance belies logic and fair play. They have pointed out that what passes currently as the current Kemalist contention is contrary to the democratic spirit, and asked how Turkey could consider itself a modern state unless democracy remained as sacrosanct as Turkey's secularist principles.

How, they asked, could democracy and secularism be separated from each other? They pointed a finger at the contradiction of the rallyists on Saturday maintaining an "anti-Western" stance while forgetting that the right of a woman not to wear a headscarf was a Western trait, and that the concepts of democracy and secularism that the rallyists claimed to uphold were essentially Western ideologies.

The present logjam in Turkish politics arises out of various factors. In the good old days, any semblance of an "Islamist awakening" in Turkey would have provided the excuse for a military takeover. But in present-day Turkey, an outright military coup is unthinkable. All that is possible is what the Turks themselves light-heartedly call a "post-modern coup". That is, an arrogation of power by the Kemalists in league with the country's establishment, riding a wave of Turkish nationalism.

Without doubt, Turkish nationalism has been on the ascendancy in the recent period on account of various factors - the EU's perceived snub of Turkey's claim to membership; war in neighboring Iraq and resultant regional instability; the deteriorating security situation in the east stemming from Kurdish militancy; and so on.

But at the same time, even though the ruling AKP is an Islamist party, it enjoys a substantial political base and commands an unassailable two-third parliamentary majority. The other political parties find themselves in varying degrees of disrepute and are lacking in credibility as a viable alternative to the AKP.

Besides, the AKP government has met with considerable success in stabilizing the country's economy by sustaining a steady high level of growth while keeping inflation under check. The economic policies have been generally responsive to the needs of different segments such as business, farmers, pensioners and government employees.

Above all, with the experience of running the government the AKP has also gained mastery to an extent over the working of Turkey's state system - its formidable bureaucracy, its enigmatic judiciary and its brawny security agencies.

.../

.../

It is natural that the Kemalists are beginning to harbor a sense of frustration that time is running out, and beyond a point, the genie of democratization in Turkey cannot be squeezed back into the bottle. All the same, an outright military coup being inconceivable, holding out the threat of extra-constitutional methods of political agitation is the only way out for the Kemalists in the emergent scenario - a variant of the phenomenon of "color revolution" endemic to the transition countries of the former Soviet Union.

But, unlike the case with Eurasia, the Kemalists in Turkey need to take note that the AKP government enjoys broad support from Washington. Of course, the Erdogan government's equations with the US can nosedive if Turkish military intervention against the Kurds in northern Iraq takes place. But, here, too, Erodgan has been careful so far not to walk into the Kemalist trap, while painstakingly deflecting the criticism that he is soft on Kurdish militancy.

The Kemalists are no doubt bracing for a showdown if Erdogan insists on himself or someone from his party claiming the presidency. It is not that Erdogan lacks the capacity to rally a million supporters of his own from all over the country on the streets of Ankara. He is a tough leader. He is a charismatic figure and has a huge popular following. But that is precisely the kind of confrontation that he has sought to avoid with the Kemalist establishment. During his years in power since 2002, he has kept a low profile and has avoided any clash with the powerful military.

There is much irony in the fact that it was the consistent decimation of a traditional left in Turkish political life by the country's establishment (through the instrument of ultra-right nationalist forces) in the Cold War setting that ultimately paved the way for the rise of political Islam. Thousands of leftist cadres were eliminated in brutal state-sponsored violence in the early 1970s.

The Islamists have striven to fill the resulting political vacuum that would have been a secular opposition's due claim. They have shrewdly exploited the discredit that the self-styled Kemalists have invited on themselves over recent decades through misgovernance, rampant corruption, cronyism and political arbitrariness. The Islamists have convinced popular opinion that they are a responsive, accountable, clean and efficient political alternative.

The paradox is that even though the emerging pattern of Islamic pluralistic politics is at variance with the West's brand of secular liberal democracy, the AKP has genuinely endeavored to advance social, economic and political reforms in Turkey in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria for EU membership. Looking back, there cannot be any two opinions that the AKP's years in power have seen a phenomenal transformation of Turkey as a country eligible for EU accession.

The country is hardly recognizable today in comparison with five years ago. The AKP ought to have received due acknowledgement from the EU for its sustained reform program aimed at strengthening the rule of law in the country. Arguably, Europe should have lent encouragement to the Turkish Islamist forces in their readiness to eschew apocalyptic strategies and instead resort to democratic politics and evolve as a centrist party. But for a variety for reasons, the EU is in no mood to "expand", and it will perforce have to go slow on Turkey's accession.

The move by Turkey's Islamists towards political participation has nothing to do with US President George W Bush's democracy project in the Middle East, either. Yet, in a curious way, it has everything to do with the democratization of the Middle East region as a whole.

Capitals such as Cairo, Amman and Riyadh will certainly watch with anxiety how their raging masses may draw the conclusion that Islamic democracy can be an alternative to Arab secular autocracy. More importantly, these Arab regimes will have cause to worry that as time passes, the West, especially the US, may begin to realize from the Turkish experience that, after all, the delicate equation between political Islam and a representative form of government doesn't have to be regarded as a zero-sum game.

Out of such a realization, a new paradigm of regime change in the Arab world may ensue. The autocratic rulers in the region will be uneasy that the Turkish experience further corroborates the reasonableness of the "historic compromise" with the Islamists in Morocco, and of the national unity government in Palestine.

The crucial importance of what is unfolding in Turkey lies in that, to quote former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami in a recent article, "Engaging political Islam will need to be the central part of any successful strategy for the Middle East. Instead of sticking to doomsday prophecies of categorical perspectives that prevent an understanding of the complex fabric of Islamic movements, the West needs to keep the pressure on the incumbent regimes to stop circumventing political reform."

Ben-Ami concluded, "The challenge is not to destroy Islamic movements, but how to turn them away from revolutionary to reformist politics by granting them legitimate political space."

Equally, political Islam is not a leviathan. It is amorphous and sort of "multicultural" - like Orange Blossom, which has Carlos Robles Arenas on drums and sampler, vocalist Leila Bounous, Pierre-Jean Chabot on violin and percussionist Mathias Vaguenez.

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).