Too much for a civil movement

The movement inspired by influential Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen is most likely the most attacked non-political movement in recent world history. Sympathizers across the political continuum have staged their assualts on the movement to score points since 1990s. Isn’t it too much for a civil movement?

No one could’ve described this awkward situation than a prominent Turkish journalist Nazlı Ilıcak, whose book is titled as “Is the Cemaat behind every stone?”. The Cemaat, or the community, is a famous phrase used to referr to the Gülen movement. Why is the movement, which is known for its widespread dialogue, inter-faith, education and charity activities both in the U.S. and elsewhere, accused of political involvement back at home.

One thing needs to be made clear: Although the Gülen movement, as a social institution, is not a political establishment, its members are free to be opinionated and hold every type of political views. It has been operating under tremendous pressure for decades and survived almost every kind of autocratic government. Nothing more normal than a movement that adjusts itself to bypass the political wrath of anti-democratic governments.

Because holding its activities freely was only possible in a democratic environment and that leading participants of the movement promoted, through a variety of ways, more freedoms and more democracy in Turkey without supporting this or that party. Only in the past 12 years, the Gülen movement’s prolonged support for pro-reform policies of the Turkish government was viewed as its outright backing of the ruling political party. Everyone believed that the movement and the party benefited each other and started launching missiles on the movement.

It was troubled times. The Gülen movement wanted to seize the opportunity to bury forces that were hostile to democracy as Ankara was bidding to join the European Union. When the government reversed its reform policies in the past few years, it also turned against the movement which helped it promote its pro-freedom reforms.

By taking sides, one agrees to a risk of possible confrontation. Until 2010, the Gülen movement has never taken any political or social side and sought to survive through these turbulent times. It was in 1990s, when the Gülen movement launched dialogue activities among various segments of the society, bringing together diverse set of people from all walks of life. In 2010, Gülen publicly backed a constitutional referendum that would reform Turkish laws in line with the European Union standards.

Although Gülen and his followers went in great length to stay apolitical, people of every color keep charging the movement for taking this or that side. The perception that the movement is so powerful and that it could be behind of every woe the nation faces has become the primary reason of attacks. Everything that was hidden or inexlicable was put on the shoulders of the movement. This, in return, is not an easy task for the movement to deal with.

It has educational activities in scores of countries. It has charity work in poor communities. It holds cultural events in almost every country. Accusing them of backing this or that side is too much for them to digest. What they only want is an accountable authority back at home that sticks to democratic standards. That’s all.

Mahir Zeynalov