Discussion with Dr. Jana Jabbour on The Government and Politics of Turkey
February 16, 2016 6:30 PM
Nicol Hall 222, Beirut campus
The Department of Social Sciences and the Institute for Social Justice and Conflict Resolution hosted a discussion with Jana Jabbour under the theme of a comparative analysis of Turkish Political History, Government and Politics.
Jabbour holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and International Relations. She is a lecturer at Sciences Po Paris and a research associate at Centre de Recherches Internationales (CERI) and Institut de Recherches sur le Moyen-Orient (IREMMO), where her research and publications mostly focus on the MENA region’s political economy and international relations.Jabbour is co-founder of a research group on “Rising powers in the international system” whose aim is to examine the role of the BRICS and other rising middle powers in world governance. She is published in prominent journals such as the European Journal on Turkish Studies and Confluences Méditerranée.
This event is part of Associate Professor Imad Salamey’s class titled “Comparative Political Systems”.
Audience Response to Guest Speaker
Dr. Jabbour’s presentation on the government and politics of Turkey was an informative one. Perhaps one of the most captivating factors about it was the fact that she discussed the political history of the Ottoman Empire without going into details with historical material that would have made the discussion less lively. Her deep knowledge of the mechanics of the Turkish rule made me aware of the fact that Ataturk was anti-Ottoman empire to the extent that he revolted against the religion of Islam due to its ties to the empire and the way the Sultans ruled. What was particularly interesting about the discussion was the comparative aspect of it, where she draws on the differences in governance between the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic established by Ataturk. The radical break with everything that was Ottoman, whether educational such as the alphabet, social such as the religion of Islam or governmental such as the abolishment of the caliphate system would make for an interesting case study, if compared to a similar case within a different nation. A question that I would have liked to ask was to what extent, as a political scientist, does Dr. Jabbour see the Republic established by Ataturk to be a successful one, asking her to draw on various negatives and positives of the rule he established. I would also have liked to learn more about his isolationism policy and to what extent it later played a role with other heads of state. Perhaps, the answers to my questions, along with further comparison with the current government, would make for a good lecture in the future. All in all, Dr. Jabbour’s lecture was a quite revealing and explanatory one that allowed me to get a glance as to how the methodologies that we have been studying about so far with Dr. Salameh, can be used with a case study.
Dr. Jana Jabbour is an excellent speaker who gave a very informative presentation about Turkey during the Ottoman Empire and after the 1923 revolution. She gave us an analytical historical narration about Turkey starting from Turkey as an Empire (Monarchic Ruling) and developing into a Turkey as a state (Republic of Turkey). Turkey is an example of a country which made a transition from a Ruling Absolutist Monarchy to an authoritative regime state by coup d’état. It was interesting to connect the chapters of our textbook with the presentation given. To start with, Ottoman Empire was ruled by a Monarchial Dictator who repressed his society. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s leadership was able by coup d’état to take over Turkey. Though, both were authoritative. Kemal was determined, however, to put new nation and state building policies. In this case, nation and state building were in parallel. Kemal wanted to build a new nation and state that would be republican, parliamentary, westernized, secular, isolated and national. Through consolidation of rule, rationalization of rule and expansion of rule, Kemal built the state. Never the less, by approaching Kemal’s ideology through instrumentalism, I can deduce that he used secularism as a tool to legitimize his own political rule. He still considered the Sunni- Turk as the better Turkish citizen. Hence, he was not secular at all. Rather he was primordial attached to his own identity. He was again an authoritative military dictator who desired power. This explains much of the later transformations in Turkey in the 1980s. By taking the time series approach in Comparative Politics, Dr. Jabbour was able to compare Turkey in different times in order to explain Turkey today. Dr. Jabbour asked a very interesting question which is “Why the JDP are in power in Turkey?”. This question shows how the Black Turks of yesterday under Kemal’s rule are the White Turks of today. Now, another question arises “Does Dr. Jabbour think that primordilism and essentialism are the cause of the problems today in Turkey?” In conclusion, I would like to thank Dr. Salamey for inviting Dr. Jabbour. I would love to have Dr. Jabbour again as a guest speaker in order for her to complete about Turkey’s development after the 2000s. Moreover, I would like to know how are the ethnic-sectarian dynamics today in Turkey.
We have received Dr. Jana Jabbour among us last Tuesday to allow her to offer us a window to Turkey’s foreign policy and interest in the region, her being an expert on Turkish affairs and policies. The presentation has been mostly informative, as our guest opted to take us all the way back to the Ottoman Empire pre-1923, and Mustafa Kemal’s Republic of Turkey, in order to argue how past approaches might have affected today’s structures in the country and ultimately given rise to Turkey’s Erdogan today. Thanks to this presentation I was made aware that Ataturk’s inclination towards Europe and his decision to alienate the Republic of Turkey from the ME was due to his fascination with the technologies of the West, their successful military tactics, and how they have been able to overhaul Turkey since Bonaparte’s invasion of Egypt and the beginning of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. His stringent way of banning religion, or attempting to control it, in addition to his unapologetic favoritism of “pure” Turkish blood and ancestry, might have given way to the marginalized conservatives or religious to mutiny and eventually carry Erdogan and the AKP to unrivaled victory. Contrary to Ataturk’s “elitism”, Erdogan had risen with the image of the self-made, pious man. It was particularly interesting to learn that in fact what Erdogan has been able to achieve economically had only been bolstered by his ability to “offer liberalism a human face”. A multitude of Turkish cities had displayed impressive growth records, particularly cities that had received little state investments or subsidies over the years, they had recently flourished under Erdogan, and no sooner had the latter come to prominence as an ethical figure, enabling him to clinch victory after another over the past decade. Unfortunately, Dr. Jabbour wasn’t able to elaborate any further due to the scarcity of time, however I was able to ask her about the origins of Turkey’s shift from “no meddling in the ME” attitude, to serving as an influential power in the region, to which she had answered: adopting Ahmet Davutoglu’s belief that Turkey has the potential to rise to a status of high power in world politics by perceiving Syria and the ME as the window to this status, and Erdogan has only started to fail when he shifted from a stance of “adaptation to changes in the ME” (adopting a more prudent and tactful stance towards changes in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt) to “wishing to influence and drive these changes himself” (actively attempting to topple Assaad’s regime by offering logistic and financial aid to movements like ISIL), which had jeopardized Turkey’s internal security and international position greatly. Another question that I have found helpful was put forward by my classmate Omar, who had asked our guest whether she could predict another shift in Turkey’s mindset towards Secularism such as Ataturk’s, to which Dr. Jabbour answered in the affirmative by nodding her head and asserting “most probably, since secularists and republicans are the ones being marginalized in Turkey nowadays”. Being Turkish myself, I have really appreciated knowing more about my second Turkey, and being from the ME myself, I had tried to ask questions that would allow me to better predict Turkeys current influence on our region. I recommend to invite Dr. Jabbour to another round in order to resume our discussion of this great country’s foreign policy.
She started with a historical background of the Ottoman Empire and explained the features that controlled the political dynamics of that era. Dr.Jabbour than goes on to explain how Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded the Turkish republic and started a process of nation building discarding the legacy of the Ottoman empire and driving Turkey towards westernization; and modernity. Dr.Jabbour explains how Ataturk discarded religion as a source of legitimacy to found a new political secular system to legitimize his political rule. She emphasizes that Ataturk invented a national identity based on Turkishness; meaning that Turks were a different but rather superior race. She then goes on to describe the rise of political forces in Turkey during the 80’s, weighing the reason to the political polarization in the world due to the cold war, she argues that the one way to fight communism was to allow for the expression of religion in society. The lecture was interesting due to the information that I personally did not get in touch with through my academic work especially the historical context. My fellow classmates enriched the lecture with a few questions (due to the lack of time) that provided additional knowledge on the issue.
The discussion and presentation were very beneficial indeed, as I became more aware of the Turkish history and how it became the replacement of the Ottoman Empire. I have learned how secularism could be as well an authoritarian imposition on people and a repression to their freedom of expression. However, what was interesting to me was the antagonism in Ataturk’s actions and beliefs. Even though he was very oppressive and was preventing any religious expressions, he believed that only “Muslim Sunnis” were the perfect citizens in his country. Basically all questions asked by the students were an added value, whether it was the question about minorities during Ataturk’s time or about the chances and opportunities which made him subject to western values or about the oppression he performed back then and back-fired nowadays. I would have liked to ask about Erdogan’s policies at the time being and if they are leading the country to become more religious, and for this reason I would recommend that this topic be discussed further in the future.
The presentation by Dr. Jabbour was excellent. She was very knowledgeable about the subject and was able to give a very comprehensive account of the evolution of the Ottoman empire into the current Turkish system. This presentation was very important in helping me understand many aspects of the Turkish political decisions and actions today. What I found interesting was how the evolution of Turkey and the past policies were used in order to gather support for the current party in power. It was a shame that we did not have enough time to continue the discussion into modern day policies under the current Turkish government which would have been a very interesting ending to the presentation by Dr. Jabbour by linking all the history of the country to its actions today. Many important questions were raised and I was impressed with the speed, detail and accuracy in which Dr. Jabbour was able to answer. I am definitely looking forward to attending more presentations by her.
Dr. Jabbour’s presentation was very insightful as I acquired a lot of knowledge in regards to why Turkey’s government is a parliamentary democratic republic, with the Prime minister being the head of government. It is interesting to understand how governments’ ‘repressions’ in the past can shape the leaders of our present, as was expressed by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s drastic governmental changes once he gained power. What i enjoyed most during the presentation was the comparison between the Ottoman Empire’s way of rule & Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s complete opposite leadership. In order to understand the kind of ruler that Kemal was, we needed to learn the background of the ruling government before he stepped in. It was thought-provoking to learn that instead of wanting to follow in the footsteps of the Ottoman Empire, Kemal wanted to be like the more ‘modern’ and ‘advanced’ Europe. I appreciated the question asked by Noor in regards to how Mustafa Kemal acquired so much knowledge about Europe, having lived his whole life in what is now known as Turkey. While he attended the Imperial War College, who taught European experiences to Ottoman students, it is also important in understanding the role that society & schools play in shaping future power holders. A question I would have liked to ask is what happened, after the decline of Kemal, to the ‘Black Turks’ who were previously the ‘White Turks’. Also, I would like to hear Dr. Jabbour again discussing the 2000’s and the rise of the JDP.
During last week’s seminar in the Comparative Politics class, Dr. Salamey invited a guest speaker to talk about the Turkish political transition starting with the Ottoman Empire, passing through the Secular Kemalist era and reaching today’s modern Turkey that is run by the Islamists (unfortunately). The guest was Dr. Jana Jabbour, a young and beautiful (she looks a bit like Dima Sadek, LBC’s talk show host and news anchor) International Affairs instructor and analyst that specializes in Middle Eastern politics. In her VERY interesting presentation, Dr. Jabbour talked about Turkey and its historical political transition that was mainly based on 6 pillars during the Ottoman Era: Dual Legitimacy, Heredity System, No System of Checks, Patrimonialism, no attempt at Nation-Building and No Territorial Definition of the State. After that, our guest talked a lot about Turkey under Mustafa Kemal and his forceful westernization of the country and the adoption of a secular system that was very different than the classic (or vanilla, as many analysts say) secular systems of that of France and the UK. Dr. Jabbour didn’t have enough time to talk about all the points that she prepared for the presentation (she also invited herself to continue the talk in a later session) and Dr. Salamey had to intervene to allow us to ask some questions before time runs out. The students asked many interesting questions like Julia’s enquiry regarding the USSR-Turkish relationship during the Cold War Era, Markrid’s question regarding the international image of Turkey and how the case of the Armenian Genocide can cast it spell on that image. Khalil on the other hand asked about the latest municipal elections in Turkey and how Erdogan easily dominated the ballot outcomes (unfortunately, again). I personally asked a couple of questions, trying to understand Dr. Jabbour’s view regarding a possible secular seizure of power in Turkey and, if that happens, the possibilities of supporting other regional secular minorities. Sara and I didn’t leave our further questions unanswered; we followed Dr. Jabbour and Dr. Salamey after class and bombarded them with all our remaining questions! We are waiting for Dr. Jabbour’s second visit to Lau to continue her presentation :)
Dr. Jana’s presentation was well prepared in order to address the LAU students about the Turkish politics, it was comparative in its methodological component for the speaker compared the Turkish regime from the Ottoman days till the establishment of the Modern republic. Thus Turkey in the 20th century and Turkey in the 21st century.
Major transformation occurred in Turkey, the history of state formation and legacy of the Ottoman empire it emerged out of opposition to the Ottoman empire where the Turkish government became an anti-thesis of the Turkish Ottoman state.The Ottoman state rested on specific dual legitimacy where the Sultan was a Caliph and the leader of the empire hence he enjoyed double religious and political representation of the Uma. The Sultan instrumentalized the Sharia’s and asked the religious Fatwa’s to justify the decisions that he took. The political system was hereditary as well, no rotation of power because it was limited to the sons of the Ottoman Sultan’s family. Patrimonialism was also another feature inside the Ottoman empire where the political governance was in such a way in which the state positions are attributed according to proximity and loyalty to the Sultan. Client-patron relationship where the Sultan used the majority of the state positions. The empire was characterized as well by the system of checks and balances without any attempt of nation building (no national identity). The sultan had established the Millet autonomous system. As of the 16th century it was a phase of decline because of the revolution in Europe, in 1798 the Ottoman empire was invaded by the EU and in World War I by the Austro-Hungarian empire. After this period Mustafa Kamal Ataturk, the army commander started to build the nation where he first changed the ottoman alphabet to Latin, then abolished the Caliphate, promoted westernization therefore the state ideology of Kemalism and parliamentary republic.The regime was as well military dominated, the army doesn’t exercise political control but the army sets the boundaries of the political system. Secularism was another feature, not to forget the nationalism that the Turkish race is different and a superior race. The foreign policy was isolation completely from the outside with no offensive policy; denigration from the outside world. These created the ideal Turkish citizen based on ethnic, secular and modernity. However, these changes also created deep division and peripheral cleavages.In 1980s a major transformation occurred in Turkey and progressiveness started to rise; Islamization and ideological polarization. Where Islam as spiritual religion against communism.
The presentation by the speaker Jabour on the government and politics of Turkey was very informative and well delivered. It provided the students with possibly new knowledge of historical context of Turkey we see as a state nowadays, and encouraged understanding of the transformation of the state since the Ottoman rule. And as speaker Jabour emphasized the crucial need of understanding the historical context, I find it interesting the use of political sociology in government and state politics research. Several interesting as well as important points were made such as dual legitimacy of the state as political authority working in parallel with religious legitimacy, or another point on the way of explaining Kemalism as a state ideology and the state’s development from it. Very inspiring speaker, would like to hear and participate in the second part of the presentation on Turkish government and politics in the 2000s.
Dr. Jabbour discussed the government and politics of Turkey. It was very essential for her to conduct a comparative study between Ottoman Empire and the founding of the modern Turkey state. The new Turkish nation-state under Kemal Ataturk faced a reform/transformation in the 1980s. Jabbour’s comparative methodology was very clear in explaining the evolution of Turkish politics. It was definitely something new to learn. A question by a fellow colleague on the treatment of Ataturk and JDP for the minorities in Turkey mostly brought my attention. I wanted to ask her —which could be an interesting path to explore— on the sudden change in Turkey foreign policy behavior; from the phase of isolationism to the phase of regional expansion; a neo-Ottoman Empire.
The guest speaker Dr. Jana Jabbour presented a discussion titled The Government and Politics of Turkey, shedding the light on the historical Turkish major political transformations. She provided us with an interesting and informative discussion about the factors that lead to the establishment of Turkish nation-state. She began with explaining the features of the political life of the Ottoman Empire in terms of leadership, legitimacy, patron-client relationship between the Sultan and his subjects, the absence of both checks and balances and the territorial definition as the Sultan was considered the leader of the Umma. Then, she explained the stages that lead to the decline and abolishment of the Ottoman Empire. What caught my attention is Dr.Jabbour’s elaboration the major role of the army commander Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in founding the Turkish republic in 1923 after abolishing the Empire in 1922 and how he promoted Westernization thinking that it is parallel to modernity, besides adopting Kemalism as an ideology. Also, she explained the components of the ideology which are republicism, secularism, ethnic identity nationalism and foreign policy isolation. She ended the discussion with pointing briefly to the Islamist rise that took place in the 1980’s as a major political transformation. It would have been interesting to know more about the Justice and Development party. Regarding the questions of my colleagues that I found helpful:1-How was Kemal fascinated with the Western Civilization although he lived and got educated in the Ottoman Empire?2-Do you think that seculars will ever seek to re-gain power? I also wanted to ask her about her opinion of Tukey’s role in the Syrian conflict. Finally, in light of the discussion, it would be interesting to know about the nature of challenges that Turkey is facing with the existence of the threat of terrorism imposed by the ISIS.
Dr. Jabbour’s presentation on the government and politics of Turkey was an informative one. Perhaps one of the most captivating factors about it was the fact that she discussed the political history of the Ottoman Empire without going into details with historical material that would have made the discussion less lively. Her deep knowledge of the mechanics of the Turkish rule made me aware of the fact that Ataturk was anti-Ottoman empire to the extent that he revolted against the religion of Islam due to its ties to the empire and the way the Sultans ruled. What was particularly interesting about the discussion was the comparative aspect of it, where she draws on the differences in governance between the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic established by Ataturk. The radical break with everything that was Ottoman, whether educational such as the alphabet, social such as the religion of Islam or governmental such as the abolishment of the caliphate system would make for an interesting case study, if compared to a similar case within a different nation. A question that I would have liked to ask was to what extent, as a political scientist, does Dr. Jabbour see the Republic established by Ataturk to be a successful one, asking her to draw on various negatives and positives of the rule he established. I would also have liked to learn more about his isolationism policy and to what extent it later played a role with other heads of state. Perhaps, the answers to my questions, along with further comparison with the current government, would make for a good lecture in the future. All in all, Dr. Jabbour’s lecture was a quite revealing and explanatory one that allowed me to get a glance as to how the methodologies that we have been studying about so far with Dr. Salameh, can be used with a case study.
