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.