Baklava, bridges and brutality: inside Erdoğan’s Turkey

The hand of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the closet islamist – some accuse him of practising neo-Ottomanism – trying to subvert Turkey’s decades of secularism is plain to all who want to see it.

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

“ARE you a christian?” The question was trapped in the amber of the muslim call to prayer ringing out all around. It was asked by an old man as we stood across the street from the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate and in front of St George Church in the Fatih area of Istanbul upon a golden Sunday evening a few weeks ago.

I said I was free of faith. He looked bemused.

“Free of faith? Free of faith! Hmph! But without faith you cannot live.”

I did not argue the obvious: here I was, alive, well and happy. Probably, in significant part, because I was free of faith.

He didn’t pursue the issue, no doubt considering me a lost cause. Instead he unfurled priest’s vestments, all but disappeared into their billowing blackness as he donned them with a flourish, bade us farewell, and marched theatrically into the church to solemnise a wedding. Father Elvis, not his real name, had entered the building.

In a restaurant in thoroughly hipsterised Karaköy, a young woman sat among friends who had gathered to mark one of their birthdays. Only she wore hijab. But, like everyone else at the table, she smoked and swigged beer from the bottle.

Was she rebelling against her culture? Was she a subversive in disguise trying to undermine the faith that signals that culture? What would the Istanbullus who are adamant that the nation is divided strictly into those who drink alcohol and those who do not make of her? She had faith, it appeared. Would Father Elvis have approved?

Like baklava, Turkey has many layers. It is more probable than possible, in only a few of Istanbul’s teeming streets, to find cafés serving muddy Turkish coffee alongside those offering the jet fuel that is Antipodeans’ gift to espresso.

Or classy bars and restaurants showcasing some of the 61.5-million litres of wine the country producers annually — much of it of high quality, but only 5% of it exported — to a nation of more than 82-million, 99.8% of whom call themselves muslim.

Or nostalgic shrines to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk — the modernising secularist who was galvanised by leading an army to victory over the Allies, commanded by Winston Churchill, at Gallipoli in 1916 into the founding father of modern Turkey in 1923 — within sight of staunchly sacrosanct places of worship.

Or luridly pink-mouthed, wigged, tight-topped transsexual sex workers leaning out of first-floor windows and trying, loudly, to fish customers from the streaming pavements leading to a market frequented by conservative Kurdish women, identifiable by their penchant for snowy, delicately tassled, almost gossamer hijab.

Or 3.6-million Syrians, having fled the war at home, transposing their lives — complete with cardamom-laced coffee, a type of dried spinach called molokhiya, and restaurants using the same names, offering the same menu, staffed by the same chefs and waiters, serving the same customers as they did in Damascus and Aleppo — onto a city that has shape-shifted through the ages from being called Lygos, Augusta Antonina, Byzantium, Stanbulin, Constantinople, Islambol, Polin, Bolis, al-Qustantiniyya, the New Rome, the New Jerusalem, to Throne of the Romans.  

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has mastered separating the layers of the baklava just far enough — while also keeping the whole in one piece — to stay in power.

Born, on February 26, 1954 in Kasımpaşa, an ancient section of Beyoğlu on Istanbul’s European side whose hills tumble into the Golden Horn, Erdoğan grew up selling lemonade and simit, a kind of crisp, sesame-seeded bagel that is the breakfast of choice for almost every Turk, in the streets — where he also played football.

Rather than a prolific scorer he was blessed with the foresight to create goals, and played professionally for Kasımpaşa. These days the club’s stadium, immaculately appointed but small with a capacity of only 14 000, bears his name.

That doesn’t fit with rest of the Erdoğan story, because what he does he does big. Bridges swoop and gleam, one, across the Golden Horn, comes replete with a metro stop, another is the third suspension bridge across the Bosphorus. A mosque in the grand imperial manner, big enough to hold 63 000, looms lumpily in the distance. A vast new international airport is slickly efficient and almost an enjoyable place to be. A tunnel has been burrowed under the Bosphorus, all the better to apply a laxative to Istanbul’s chronically car-clogged colon.

Erdoğan holds a Trumpian perspective laced with Putinesque overtones, which never fails to quicken the patriotic pulse, particularly of Turks outside the main centres. At the Bosphorus bridge’s opening in August 2016, he presented a Turkish proverb as his own profundity: “When a donkey dies it leaves behind its saddle. When a man dies he leaves behind his works. We will be remembered for this.”

But, as with Donald Trump, there is dodginess in the details. The running track that hugs the shore under the bridge over the Golden Horn looks like something out of user-friendly Brisbane. Alas, it peters out in less than a kilometre.  

Similarly, kiosks flutter with all manner of newspapers, 45 of them national dailies, and another 15 exclusive to Istanbul. And few will say less than a glowing word about Erdoğan, not least because 231 journalists have been jailed in the wake of a failed coup on July 15, 2016.

The hand of Erdoğan the closet islamist — some accuse him of practising neo-Ottomanism — trying to subvert Turkey’s decades of secularism is plain to all who want to see it.

Mosques are built in spaces previously dominated by churches, and like all the others in the country they are funded by the regime, which pays everything from the salaries of clerics to the cleaning bills — and controls what is preached. Every Thursday evening the sermon for the next day’s juma service, the week’s most important and best attended prayer for muslims the world over, flutters into the inbox of every imam in Turkey. That’s not to say the men of the cloth don’t have a choice: either they relay the message as is, or follow the themes outlined, helpfully, in the same document.

Lessons on evolution and Atatürk and his successor, Ismet Inönü, have been removed from the school curriculum amid promises to teach “from the perspective of a national and moral education” to “protect national values” — code for a more conservative, religious approach.

And it’s working. Turkish flags displayed prominently in the streets, and there are many, have been put there either by overt nationalists or immigrants desperate to proclaim their affection for the country. 

If you want to research why that has happened if you are in Turkey don’t bother with Wikipedia: since April 2017 the site has been banned there in the wake of articles that said the country was a state sponsor of terrorism.

“My motherland, my beautiful but bruised motherland, is not a democracy,” Turkish author Elif Shafak wrote in an article for Politico last year. For views like that she is routinely rubbished in Erdoğan’s press, and never given the right of reply.

Yet erudite, impassioned opposition to the president and his government’s policies is as easy to find in Istanbul’s streets as crisp baklava and muddy coffee.

People speak openly about their fear of where Turkey might be after Erdoğan, who has ruled since 2003, is no longer in office; when his powerful allies in the construction industry finally run out of money. But some of those same people decline to accept the fact of the genocide, perpetrated by the Ottomans, that claimed the lives of 1.5-million Armenians between 1914 and 1923. On that score they are one with Erdoğan’s regime, which protested petulantly in April when France and Portugal officially recognised this systematic mass murder for what it was.

The Kurds will know how the Armenians felt. Erdoğan has long labelled their organised structures as terrorist, and there is evidence that in their attempts to raise funds they operate more like the mafia than political groups. But Turkey’s army didn’t ask who was a member of what when they began driving the Kurds out of northern Syria on October 9 — which they were free to do after Trump withdrew a small force of strategically situated American troops. Erdoğan wanted a buffer 30 kilometres deep and 480 kilometres long on Turkey’s southern border with Syria, and by October 28 his troops had displaced an estimated 130 000 and left 400 000 without access to clean water. How many have been killed in the cause is unclear.

On October 29 the anti-Trump US congress decided, by 405 votes to 11, that the Armenians had indeed been victims of genocide. As a position of principle it came a century too late. As a backlash against their own president it was clear, and derided by the Turks.

“Circles believing that they will take revenge this way are mistaken,” foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu posted on social media. “This shameful decision of those exploiting history in politics is null and void for our government and people.”

The brutality and bloodletting has ceased, at least until Erdoğan makes good on his threat to chase the legions of Syrian refugees back from whence they came. But the damage has been done. It didn’t help the Kurds that most of them are, like Erdoğan, Sunni muslims. Not that they would have been spared had they been something else.

Because Erdoğan is, at his core, once all his artifice is stripped away and his ambition exposed, that thoroughly human thing: free of faith.

First published by New Frame.

So, what’s Hashim Amla like?

Amla’s backlift is still pretty much where it was when commentators decided you couldn’t possibly have a successful career if you picked your bat up towards gully.

Firstpost

TELFORD VICE in London

A car slowed and then stopped along Durban’s beachfront. One pair of eyes recognised another, a door opened, a passenger plopped aboard, the door was closed, and they were off: a believer and an agnostic, to the mosque.

It’s around 15 years ago now that Hashim Amla welcomed this reporter into the world they share in distinctly separate compartments, despite the fact that they are from the same country and are involved in the same industry. The experience was unforgettable — not because of Amla’s presence, which was helpful and kind, but because the peace of that place and the people there has settled into even an agnostic’s soul.

Much has changed in the ensuing years, and much hasn’t. Like Amla’s backlift. It’s still pretty much where it was when commentators decided you couldn’t possibly have a successful career if you picked your bat up towards gully. All that’s changed is that the commentators don’t talk about it anymore. And that Amla has had one of the most successful careers the game has seen. Maybe picking up his bat towards gully was the secret. Maybe everyone should.

Amla’s backlift isn’t the only crooked thing about his game. The annals say he has bowled 393 deliveries in first-class cricket. The annals lie: Amla has chucked 393 deliveries in first-class cricket. His arm is as bent as an undone paperclip until the instant of delivery, when it miraculously flattens. Parthiv Patel, Amla’s only wicket, should sue to set the record straight.

Captaincy isn’t Amla’s thing, probably because he is too sensitive to the feelings and fears of his teammates. He tried it, realised his error and did the right thing by relinquishing the reins early enough in the piece for the misstep to not be used against him. You need at least a little nastiness to front a cricket team properly. Amla has none. 

Too often attempts at appreciating a player dissolve into a code of numbers parroted in a fashion meant to impress. In Amla’s case, that’s difficult to avoid: 311 not out, 9 282 at 46.64, fastest to 2 000, 3 000, 4 000, 5 000, 6 000 and 7 000; that sort of thing. 

None of which tells you what the player is like. We don’t need to know how good they are because we can decide that for ourselves, and if we can’t decide we can delve into those annals, fallible though they are.

So, what’s Amla like? Polite, deferent, modest, impeccably mannered. So far, so predictable. He’s also a better talker with the bat than he is at press conferences, where he says only what he thinks he should and makes jokes that are as lame as a long dead donkey.

He is older than his years, a nephew with an uncle’s outlook. He can’t wait, you suspect, to be a grandfather. Unusually for a modern cricketer, he reads serious books about spirituality and leadership. He laughs a lot, and easily.

We all know he is creaky in the field, where he reminds some of us what George Bernard Shaw might have looked like not quite gambolling about the field had he taken to cricket. Shaw, sensible man, preferred boxing, and wrote, “Cricket is a game played by 11 fools and watched by 11 000 fools.” Has Amla read Shaw? He should, if only for the chuckle he would have.

Who might such a man befriend in South Africa’s dressingroom? Surely not Dale Steyn, the tattooed rock star fast bowler given to hunting down a burger and fries — and perchance a milkshake — long after all God-fearing folk have blown out the candles? Or Quinton de Kock, the dozy savant who pops up on social media talking to random antelope? And yet they share a deep bond with Amla that goes far beyond what happens on the field or even in the dressingroom.

That’s what Amla is like: an enigmatic contradiction who, happily for the teams he plays for, is also a champion with the bat. And the eye of calm in South Africa’s often stormy reality, where politics and ego are just other challenges to be faced, like swing and seam, and dangerously inept administrators do not fear to tread on comparative angels’ heads. 

Now all that Amla, and immeasurably more, has gone. He has retired as an international player, taking his dodgy bowling action, his stodgy fielding, his flaccid captaincy, his unfunny jokes, his runs, his seriousness, his laughability, his inner and outer equilibrium, his unshakeable composure, his intelligence, his shining example, his unimpeachable integrity, with him. He leaves us, as he said in his statement on Thursday, “love and peace”. And he means it. You know he does. Because that’s what he’s like.

Of all the massive holes that have been hammered through South Africa’s team in the past few years — the going of Mark Boucher, Jacques Kallis, Graeme Smith, AB de Villiers, Morné Morkel, JP Duminy, Imran Tahir and, on Monday, in Test terms, at least, Steyn — none is as big as that left by Amla.

But, if we miss him, and we will, none will be so easy to find. He’s coming soon to a mosque near you.