More Democracy For Turkish Schools

Turkish schools do not allocate special spaces for the students -or for the staff members to do their prayers. Even though this secular rule has been breached for a long time in practice, Turkish Republic never responded to the religion based demands in official level and this situation has always been a big issue of criticism.

Those people who self-claim to be the spokesperson of the Muslim population has been harshly accusing Turkish Republic for being an infidel state who persecutes the oppressed Muslim public of the nation for every single implementation of the state which does not match with the Sheria laws.

Turkish Republic was founded in extremely hard conditions, and an Islam based opposition has always been a strong obstacle. Therefore, the Turkish regime has always seen the Islamic opposition as a direct threat to her own existence, and guarded herself accordingly. It is very clear that the never-ending harsh tone of the political Islam did not help the situation, causing the secular Turkish Republic to be very sensitive against any kind of Islamic demands. To be honest, the global political winds were for the favor of the Republic, so the demands for a more Islamic Turkish Republic was considered to be a minor issue, or a problem which can be controlled.

The situation started to change by the end of Cold War and reached its peak point by the year 2000, with the rise of AK Party. Even though the demands for a more Islamic country didn’t change, the reasoning behind such demands shifted, and the words infidel state and atrocity were exchanged with the words liberation and democracy. As a matter of fact, the confusion of democratic demands with the Islamic demands was not experienced for the first time in the relatively short history of the Republic, and the current situation may be considered as a consecution of the prior political waves, but I will skip this matter for the sake of a shorter article.
Now Turkish Republic was simply caught off-guarded. It was (and still is) very true that there was (and still is) a lot of room for the Republic to improve herself for a more democratic country, and the timing for such an improvement couldn't be any better thanks to the new global world order constantly forces the whole world to a seemingly more democratic level.

The old school defend mechanism of the Turkish Republic is not working any more. The words democracy and liberation are everywhere, and these words are in a way immune from any kind of criticism, providing a perfect shelter for every kind of political demand. Those people who dare to question these demands are blamed to be non-democratic elitists in no time. Measures against these so called elitists sometimes resemble a fascist oppression, but ironically all these measures are taken for the sake of democracy, so it is almost a sin to argue the matter.

Nobody argues the need for a true democracy in Turkey, but it should be seriously argued whether all the demands match with democracy or not; or rather if the so called new democrats are true democrats who care for the demands of the public in all aspects.

The demand to open prayer rooms in Turkish schools is still an issue of controversy, but nowadays people want them not because they think not-having prayer rooms is an atrocity, but because having them is a democratic right. Or sometimes we see this demand as a perfect solution to protect the young generations, as it was the case not very long ago.

But of course, the political Islam is also affected from the global tides and they don’t ask the prayer rooms only for the Muslims but for all other religious groups, too. Hence, with a population of 99.99% Muslims, it is pretty clear that such an implementation would practically cover the Islamic demands which Turkish Republic had been hearing all the time, but of course, this time for a seemingly different cause. However, lets first analyze the multi-cultural and multi-religious aspect of this "democratic demand."

Even though there is an immense ethnical diversion in Anatolian soils, the populations of "minorities" are really minor when compared with other multi-cultural societies. I am not saying this to try to belittle the minorities in Turkey, but to underline the fact that it would be very hard to try to please every religious groups in Turkish schools. Because, with the exception of few schools specially designed for minor ethnicities, the number of students from a non-Muslim group in any given high school wouldn’t be more than 10 or 20, if there are any. So what will be the criteria to open a prayer room for any religious group? Will 10 students be enough, or 5, or only 1? And what if the criteria is for 10 students but there are only 9 students from a religion? Or what if, the criteria is for 5 students, and there are like 6 students this year but only 4 students the next year?

And, are all the religions will be covered by this democratic right? And what about the sects? Is the government going to allow a special prayer room for every sect of every religion, or will they tend to ignore the sects claiming that they are the parts of the bigger picture, as the ruling AK Party tend to approach the Alevi population in Turkey. Or, is the conservative democratic AK Party going to allow every religious democratic demand or only the religions which worship the True God? Are they going to allow Budist rooms if Budist students demand for it? Or, is the government going to allow a special prayer room for every religion that human can count? I don't know if anyone has counted but there must be hundreds of different religions in the world. Or as an extreme case scenario, it is not a big secret that Satanism sometimes becomes very popular in a portion of the society, and sometimes the number of kids who claim to be Satanists outnumber any other sub groups. Will the government allow cat killing sessions in schools for the sake of democracy, or will they suddenly remember there should be some limits, for any of the questions which took place in this paragraph?

Talking about democracy and liberation always sounds good in public, but the so called "democratic" implementations may cause more problems then expected if they are not handled rationally. I do not suggest that Turkish Republic or any other republic in that aspect should ignore any religion based questions, but I am suggesting that trying to find a solution outside the school yards and leaving schools for educational purposes as they should would be a far better idea.

But lets put aside the extreme examples and lets think about the most possible typical situation in Turkish schools if such an implementation takes place: In most of the schools there will only be Namaz rooms because there won't be any other religious groups who demand a special prayer room in their schools. Even though this self-elimination of diversity simplifies the problem to some extent, I don’t think it is any nearer to a real solution.

First of all, if it is a matter of finding a place for a prayer for the Muslim students in Turkey, it would be enough for them to take 500 steps outside of their schoolyards to find a mosque. If they can't find any mosques in 500 steps, just make it 1000 steps and there is no way they can't find a mosque then. So perhaps, a regulation to allow these children to go to a nearby mosque might pretty much solve the problem. But of course, there will be people who object this kind of a solution, saying that there will never be enough time for the students to attend both the mosque and the classes, and it is the best if the children do their prayers in school, which also happens to be the basis of another problem.

Prayer times are not fixed in Islam, and they change due to sun's movements. So the same prayer time shifts approximately one minute per day forward or backward depending on the season. So, even if we allocate special prayer rooms for the students to practice Namaz, we won't be able to solve the timing problem, and there will always be a time when the class time and the Namaz time collide . Unless of course, you don't regulate the class times constantly in order to prevent such a collision.

Of course, demanding such a regulation may also be considered as a democratic demand and school times may be arranged due to prayer times. This is democracy, and this is what the public wants, so what is wrong with that? At least, this is what the new democrats of old conservatives would tell you. But it is indeed wrong. The first problem here is, it is very clear that you don't try to fulfill a democratic demand anymore but make regulations due to Islam, which is against the secularism concept. Samewise, you are also making changes due to the demands of a group of students (and also their parents), ignoring the opinions of other people outside of this group, which is against the democracy concept. And this is wrong as long as you claim that you are trying to change Turkey for a better democracy.

As a matter of fact, the practical problems which will be encountered if religion based "democratic" demands are tried to be compelled have a second degree of importance. The important problem as I see here is the mindset of the people who constantly associate democratic demands with religious demands and ignore every other social notion. Yes, prayer rooms might still be considered within the democracy, and a dedicated mind can actually find the best solution for the practical problems to be encountered. But however, should this really be the priority of a government who claim to be the most democratic? In an average state school in Turkey, the average number of students who have to share the same class room is not less then 50, unless of course, the parents are not rich enough to send their children to a private and expensive school. So, are there any people in the current AK Party government who work hard day and night to bring a solution to this problem?

A Muslim boy can always find a place for Namaz in a way or other, but what about a music genius who creates miracles in front of a piano? Can such a student be able to find a place to play a piano that easily? I am afraid that such a child will most probably grow old even maybe without seeing a real piano, without given such an opportunity.

Yes, religion is a very important social and psychological aspect which tames the souls and keeps our young generations away from trouble. But what about sports, which will help them spend their excessive energy if nothing else? I used to see some ads in Istanbul streets which the municipality run by AK Party was bragging with the number of new sports facilities they have opened. This is actually a great service for the public and I cannot deny that, but what good is it for if it is not supported by related politics so that students are actually encouraged to do sports? Are there any one in the AK Party government who works hard day and night to bring a solution to that problem? Looking at the failure of Turkish Republic in the last Olympic Games in Beijing, I don’t think that there is.

My point here is, a more democratic Turkey should of course be encouraged, or even be "pushed" towards that destination -if "push" is the right word for it, but however what we see nowadays in Turkey reminds me the cunning merchant who wraps the old goods with a new and eye-catching paper. What's more, the cunning merchant runs such a brilliant PR campaign that everybody believes that he is selling a brand new product, and those people who try to tell what the real situation is about are oppressed by every kind of accusations.

Turkish Republic is still against the very old demands regarding political Islam. It wouldn’t look that bad if the demanders and the implementers who widely happen to be the same people could draw a sincere picture about their democratic claims and ask democracy for everybody, but unfortunately for the republic, they seem to be seeking the democratic rights of the "conservative" population only, completely ignoring the rest of the society.

Of course, people realize the real situation when they go home and open the fancy box, and perhaps the go back and ask for their money, but in socio-political events, reversing back things may not be that easy.

Turkey Needs More Freedom of Speech

Image via WikipediaEvery society consists of sub-communities, where these communities feel and identify themselves different from each other. These communities, by nature, demand respect for their existence and their way of life, and want to implement their common values in the society.

A democratic society tries to build a harmony between these communities by means of hearing, understanding, and respecting. It tries to create a free space for everybody not only in communal level but also in individual level. However, it is never possible to fulfill every demand of every community, and therefore building a harmony requires these communities to understand the fact that there has to be a limit to their demands.

Looking at Turkish Republic from this point of view, it is pretty much clear that she needs to improve her democratic skills. Even though Turkish Republic has never claimed that she is not democratic since she is founded, the real life experiences has shown us that the democracy in Turkey is rather fragile and does not function as effective as she is supposed to. Unfortunately it is true that the Republic has been reluctant to hear some of her citizens in order to create an ideal society of her own.

It is indeed very true that Turkish Republic needs to be more democratic, but however, one needs to be very careful while transpassing from theories to realities; because improving the weak points of a system does not and should not mean that an alternative system should be brought to life, which is pretty much we are experiencing in Turkish Republic nowadays. Showing respect to every community is one thing, giving away the domination of the entire society to one of the communities for the sake of democracy is another.

And in fact this should be what we are discussing. Therefore I believe that Mr. Babacan's speech in front of a group of European politicians with the title of Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister has an historical importance. When he was asked about the civil rights of the minorities in Turkey, Mr. Babacan explicitly said that even the civil rights for Muslim majority in Turkey is suppressed.

Mr. Ali Babacan is a member of a government and the AK Party. AK Party has been ruling the country for the last almost 6 years. While AK Party claims that they are trying to bring a real democracy for Turkey, incidents such as Mr. Babacan's speech and some others I am about the mention indicates that the vision of AK Party for the future of Turkish Republic differs from the republic itself.

Understanding the background of the political Islam in Turkey is a crucial element in this issue. If you were a complete stranger for Turkish Republic and suddenly felt like you should know about her, and therefore googled Turkey, you would most probably have this image that Turkish Republic has a dictatorial regime and suppresses everyone in the country, and the AK Party with undeniable Islamic roots are trying to close the gap between the Turkish Regime and a real democracy.

However, the outstanding PR campaign for the political Islam in Turkey is not going to explain you how come this party has been the government for the last six years and still complaining about the regime they are supposed to be ruling. The answer is: while it is true that Turkish Republic needs to improve her democracy, political Islam in Turkey uses this exact deficit to empower political Islam which actually has no intention to show any democratic tolerance to other possible fractions.

Looking at the popular media who claim to be the democracy champions, all you can see is how right Mr. Babacan is about his comment. Instead of arguing the position of a Foreign Minister against his own country, this popular media tries to impose you that there is indeed no freedom for the Muslims in Turkey. And when you ask evidence for such a claim, you realize that these so called liberals suggest you a society model completely based on Islamic rules.

If you can find a chance to look at what is actually going on within the Islamic intellectuals, you will see that they use the words "atrocity" and such too often for every kind limit to the Islamic practises. But just don't be confused. We are not talking about the fundamental rights here, such as Namaz, or Oruc. The rights which are limited are actually not a part of a belief system but a political system, where it gets harder to differentiate what is religion and what is politics. The harmony I mentioned at the beginning of this article is not a very popular notion among Islamic intellectuals because they simply do not accept the fact that there needs to be boundaries for each community to create harmony.

Of course it should be granted for everyone to express the social model they want to live in, and this is indeed the problem with the Turkish Republic, but it is also another problem if you claim that the only truth is your interpretation of life, and anything which does not fall in your set definitions is atrocity. However, that is the exact reason why Mr. Babacan complains about his own country which he is supposed to be governing, because there are things which he cannot change (yet) and therefore feels uncomfortable.

Ms. Canan Bezirgan and Ms. Kevser Çakır created a turmoil with their declarations recently in a TV show. While trying to defend their rights to enter universities with their headscarves, these two obviously very confused girls said that they don't love Ataturk, but they love Humeini, and they would prefer to live under British yoke instead of an independent Turkish Republic. In fact, these two girls were the clear examples of why there should be more freedom of speech in Turkey. Because as long as people cannot express what they think explicitly, then it is very hard to estimate the level of nonsense people can come up with.

But however, these girls are now trialed because of a law which prohibits humiliating Ataturk. Nobody has to love nobody, so therefore the girls were quickly publicized as the new victims of the cruel Turkish Republic. However, I believe it is very important how the so called liberal media reacted to these girls.

Defending people's right to express themselves is a different notion than defending what people say. So therefore, I really think there should be more freedom of speech and these girls along with anybody else should feel completely free to say whatever they want to say. But, clearly enough there is no way I can defend what these girls have said. Actually it is even a harder job to put their words in a sensible context. Willing to become a British colony instead of an independent country is not something to say if you know what being colonized means.

The so called liberal media failed to see this notion. I agree that it is important to defend these girls' rights to express themselves, but it becomes extremely wrong if you do it in a way as if you agree with these girls. In fact, there were three general kind of reactions to these girls. The so called liberal media fiercely supported the girls. They did not only supported their rights to express themselves, but also claimed that they had a point. On the other hand, the religious media was more careful about what they were saying. They did not defend the words of these girls, but instead, they claimed that they are two confused girls who cannot be considered as the representatives of the Islamic world. In fact, this is a typical reaction of the Islamic media. Whenever something which is hard to defend occurs, that something just happens to be an isolated incident. But in fact, if there were more freedom of speech in Turkey, we would see that these girls are indeed the representatives of the Islamic world, because they represent exactly the same kind of mindset with the political Islam in Turkey.

And the third kind of reaction came from the secular media who are fiercely blamed to be non democratic by the same PR campaign which praises AK Party all the time. However, this secular media was the most mature one, because almost everybody was saying the same thing that nobody has to love Ataturk, and shouldn't be trialed for that, but this doesn't change the fact that these girls spoke only crap.

Yes, it is very important to let people speak what ever they want to speak, s0 that we can have a better understanding of who is in favor of real democracy and who is just a pretender.

The words of Mr. Mehmet Mir Dengir Fırat as the vice chairman of AK Party during an interview with Ms. Sabrina Tavernise from NY Times also has historical importance. The article says:

“Turkish society has been traumatized,” said Dengir Firat, vice chairman of A. K. “Overnight they were told to change their dress, their language. Their religious ways were dismantled.”

“Societies without that trauma could not care less how people dress,” said Mr. Firat, whose offense in the indictment was to have told a journalist that people who were nervous about head scarves should see psychiatrists.

Even though "trauma" would not be my first choice of words for the direct impact of a revolution, it is indeed true that the foundation of Turkish Republic created a shock effect in the society. However, Mr. Fırat's overall speech along with his other speeches while he thought he was trying to defend himself clearly puts out that Mr. Fırat sees the whole case from a negative point of view. For example, he says "By abolishing Arabic alphabet and accepting Latin alphabet, the ratio of people who can read dropped down to zero, just overnight." But he doesn't mention that the ratio was like 5% or so, because the Ottoman Empire did not consider teaching everyone how to read as a priority, as opposed to Turkish Republic with a ratio of currently 90%. He mentions about the dress code, but does not mention about the right to vote for women.

Of course, nobody has to see the revolution as a positive impact. And nobody should be restircted to say whatever they want to say. How can we otherwise see who is talking about the truths and who is just talking nonsense?

The Government Opposition

There is an at least two centuries old Turkish tradition that the opposers against the regime has always sought asylum in Europe. In this post, i am not going to argue whether they were right or wrong; nor i am not going to argue what the European countries really intended when they provided a shelter for the Turkish opposition. As a matter of fact, i don't discriminate the ethinc origins of the opposers; i don't discriminate the political views of the opposers; and furthermore i don't even discriminate whether it is Ottoman Empire era or the Turkish Republic era. I am talking about a general notion in Turkish history.

And the bottom line here is, Turkish oppostion has always considered Europe as a safe haven against the regime in which they never felt safe while expressing their discontent.

Mr. Ali Babacan, the Foreign Affairs Minister of Turkish Republic has taken this notion to a groundbreaking new level. Because first time in Turkish History, we see a member of the government complaining about his country to the European politicians as if he is not a part of the state mechanism but a part of the opposition to the current Turkish regime.

When asked about the problems regarding the rights of the minorities in Turkey, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkish Republic replied to the EU politicans that "Not only the minorities but also the Moslem population of Turkish Republic suffer from the lack of proper rights."

The Moslem population he refers is often said to be the 99% of the general population of Turkey. Of course, his words created another furius controversy, and interestingly everybody except Mr. Babacan himself declared an opinion about it. We haven't heard fron him about this issue so far. From my point of view, this is a typical abuse of religion for the sake of political advantage, and this pretty much explains why Turkish Republic had once took severe measures against almost everything which was considered to be political Islam.

Because when you start abusing it, it becomes too hard to see when it is really the time you should stop. However, the most important aspect of this unfortunate declaration is not the fact that it is extremely biased and far from reflecting the real situation. The most serious problem here is not this old song about more religious rights. The real problem here is the psychology behind these words. And before analyzing the religion aspect to see whether he is right or wrong, we should really analyze the structure of the mindset which makes Mr. Babacan to complain about his own country which he happens to be governing.

Simply, Mr. Babacan did not act as if he was a part of the ruling mechanism of his country. Instead, he preferred to act along the tradition and complained about Turkish Republic as if he is the opposition. It is also important to keep in mind that we are talking about a poitician who doesn't talk much in public, and when he talks, he talks with extreme caution -probably because he is too cautios about being misunderstood.

So far, the AK Party and their army of shallow liberals have masterfully presented the penetration of all kind of religion-based implementions into ruling mechanisms of the country as democracy. And while doing that they completely ignored the social necessity to restrict the role of religion in the social life, or totaly twisted the facts about Turkish History to convince you that the restriction was nothing but a persecution. Yet, what we actually see is that, they can't actually tolerate anything which is not religion based and therefore feel themselves as opposition even if they are ruling the country but encountering a resistance coming from the Turkish Republic herself.

The Golden Horn Incident

The Sharia Factory

In the first years of the AKP government in their first period, a news had become a sudden center of attention for a while. Just like many other things, the news flashed and then left to oblivion and i dunno if anybody remembers the incident or if anybody knows how it all ended.

A contract between the AKP administration and World Islam Bank -or another Islamic bank with a name as fancy as this one- had been signed and due to this contract, the bank was going to invest on a textile factory and employ as much as 500 people in a city in Anatolia. Now, im not really good at remembering details and i prefer to look at a bigger picture instead of getting lost in details, so i will spare the name of the city as well as the name of the spokesman of AK Party in this particular incident, not because i cant remember their names but just in case my memory plays a trick on me. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with providing a foreign investor who is willing to create a source of income and employ people, isnt it? Well thats actually a very good news especially when you consider that most of the liquid money enters in this country is not transferred into real investments, but just circulates wildly in the country waiting for the day to leave when the money bringers start to believe that it is not profitable anymore to lend money to Turkish Republic.

But lets stay focused to the subject. So an Islamic bank was about to make a huge investment in Turkey and this was good news. But our elitist kemalist ultra-nationalists just couldnt stand still and investigated the contract, and it turned out that there was a little catch: the bank was practically asking that Sharia laws would be implemented in the factory, and the government had accepted this. I told you, it was big news.

The Spokesman

Then enters the defenders of the situation. And i remember one particular spokesman for the AK Party, but as i told you before, i will not give you any names in case i remember wrong. But i pretty much remember what he said. He said that "I am trying to create a source of income here." Now, he was saying "I" which clearly indicated that what he is saying is what AKP is saying, and they are the same. And he said "I am only interested in creating the source, and i dont pay much attention where it comes from or what it requires as long as it is for the good of the people."

And he said that on TV.

There were three things which disturbed me about his statement. First of all, he was not convincing. It was as if he was trying to make the most sense to justify the situation, only after all this got into center of attention. In my vocabulary there is a word for this, but my memory plays a trick on me right now, and i just cant remember the word. Second, he was trying to play the "liberal" here, but obviously he was only proving that he had no idea about true liberalism. Well, from my point of view, liberalism is about creating equal opportunities for everybody. Even if everything fits into a legal procedure (but of course it is not the case), a factory which forces people to adopt a way of life if they want a job-- no, this is not liberalism. And thirdly and most importantly: just read between the lines: the guy was explicitly saying that there is no problem with allowing an institution to create its own set of laws -whether Sharia or something else- in a spot dedicated to them within the borders of Turkish Republic. In my vocabulary, you can translate it as "I can sell the sovereignty of my country, if the correct price is given."

This whole thing was like 5 years ago and nobody seems to remember it.

Theoretic Questions

Now, what he was saying was far from convincing, because i really would like to ask him what his reaction would be if somebody wanted to launch a factory in which everybody had to be naked? Would he still take it as a matter of money flow? Would he allow a nudist camp? Or a whorehouse? Or would we suddenly see that there are actually very thick walls and those people with those extreme requirements would hit the wall?

Real Situation

Lets not turn this into a theoretical mind exercise with some extreme examples and lets stick to real life situations, shall we?

So lets consider alcohol consumption.

No matter what the political trend is, people consume alcohol in Turkey. Even though the overall alcohol consumption in Turkey is no match to the European countries, it is still convenient to assume that alcohol consumption is a good business. Actually, we have a history of constantly increasing taxes on beverage, not because governments tried an indirect restriction for the alcohol consumption but they saw that people buy drinks anyhow, so they tried to create some more income.

On the other hand, it is not a big secret that it may very hard to find alcohol to buy in some of the eastern cities of Turkey. Now, the situation actually has a long history of peer pressure and it would be totally injustice to blame AKP for that. But however, in a true democracy as in the one AKP loves to claim, you would expect the governments to try to diminish the peer pressure effect and provide an environment where everybody can decide for himself/herself without the fear of peer pressure. But what we have seen so far from the AK Party is that, they presented the peer pressure as a democratic right. It is very true that in Turkey, any given population in an eastern province will tend to have rigid religious social structure if left alone, but democracy doesnt mean that these people should be left alone. This is where AK Party lost me, and this is where they labeled me as an elitist kemalist ultra nationalist.

It is not a big secret that it is getting harder and harder to get license to serve alcohol in restaurants, and traditionally it has always been hard to find a place which sells alcohol, and least in some of the cities. But not for Istanbul. As a matter of fact, there are at least 12 millions of people in Istanbul -if not more, and the life in Istanbul is really very much different than the rest of the country, as if the city is a country itself. And therefore, some of the problems people experience in other cities sometimes is not fully perceived by regular Istanbulians. Perhaps alcohol consumption is one of them, because it has never been an issue.

The Golden Horn Issue

As a matter of fact, it is still not an issue, and if you want a place to drink, there are plenty for you to choose. So the Golden Horn issue which i am about to tell may seem like an isolated incident to you. Or you may suggest that i have to learn to tolerate such incidents if im into real democracy. And i will try yo explain you why it is not the case.

For a quick review, there is a Golden Horn Hotel in Golden Horn. And this hotel does not have a license to serve alcohol. But however, it turns out that they do serve alcohol, but only to foreigners but Turks. In an incident that took place a few days ago, a journalist experiences the situation first hand, and of course writes about it. You can click here if you want to know more about it, and actually i would like you to.

So when the news is heard, the hotel gets a penalty. Because you see, the hotel does not have a license so they cant serve to anybody. So they are punished because they served the foreigners, not because they discriminated their visitors and treated differently, not because implementing some kind of a rule Allah knows where they inspired from, but obviously not from Turkish laws.

Empiric Questions

Now, what kind of a boss invests money for a hotel in one of the most touristic places of Istanbul, in the ancient city, which means you really have to invest a lot of money but does not acquire a license to serve alcohol? I mean is it like they have a very rigid religious world view so they dont apply for the license even if they spend so much for the hotel? Or is it like the authority -whoever he is- grants a license to run a hotel in one of the the most touristic places of the whole country but not the alcohol license? Or is it both? I mean what is the motive here? Is it democracy? Is it liberalism? Is it money? Or what? And what kind of a mindset is that the hotel thinks it will be alright if they serve alcohol to the foreigners but not Turks? Hasnt ever the very same authority who allowed the hotel to run inspected the place? Doesnt he really know what is going on in that hotel? And why does he ignore it? Does it still sound like a democracy to you? Or liberalism? Or do you think this is an isolated incident? An accidental situation maybe? Well, it is accidental indeed. It is an accident that this whole thing is revealed. It should have been hidden long enough to present it as a defacto situation so that defending such kind of a hotel would be a matter of democracy.