The Awakening of the Turks

November 26th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

In the last few decades a major change has taken place in what we Westerners often call “the Muslim world”: Turkic peoples have awoken.

For years, many Turkic peoples were dominated by the Soviet Union and / or by other foreign powers. One only has to refer to countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan to see that these peoples were dominated by communists for decades. These communists tried to destroy the Turkic peoples they controlled and their culture.

But they did not succeed.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union these Turkic peoples have staged a major comeback. Several Turkic countries have vast oil and other natural resources reserves which have finally been exploited by them, exported to other countries, especially the West, which has resulted in massive economic growth.

But economic growth is not the only thing on the rise in the Turkic world: their sense of identity is as well.

Turkemenistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and others have all seen a rise in nationalist sentiment after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Ever since the Soviet Union fell apart in several nation-states, Turkic peoples have tried to go back to their roots; they have tried to break with the Russian influence in their cultures and languages.

Turks are proud to be Turk once again. No longer are Turkic languages deemed ‘backwards.’ No longer are they determined to break with the religion of their fathers. 

When the Soviet Union collapsed and Turkic peoples suddenly regained their independence they could have done a couple of things: they could have looked at Russia for inspiration and guidance, at Iran, or at the West. 

For most Turkic countries it was an easy choice: the West.

And, when traveling through the Turkic world today, one sees that Turks are increasingly proud of their heritage, but are Westernizing nonetheless. They consider the West to be their natural allies; they consider themselves tolerant and civilized. Above all, perhaps, Turkic peoples are ambitious: they realize that the West is rich and developed, whereas especially the ‘Muslim world’ is not.

This provides the West with a tremendous opportunity: Arabs are in many ways different from Turks. One of the main differences is their view on religion, another major difference is their approach to the West. Turkic Islam is quite different from Arab Islam; the focus among Turks is far more on spiritual, or mystical, aspects of religion and much less on ‘rules.’ Arabs have tried to destroy the legacy of Sufi mystics whereas Turks pride themselves in their rich history of mysticism. Islam is important to Turkic peoples, but not the only, perhaps not even the most important aspect of their daily lives: first and foremost comes the family, then the community, the city and the nation. 

In the Arab world the situation is almost the reverse: they do not look at the West for guidance, and they define themselves by their religion first and foremost. They do not consider themselves Syrians or Iraqis but Muslims. Religion is generally not an internal, mystical experience to Arabs but outwardly and revolving around rules and ancient customs. 

All Turkic peoples generally take pride in education, progress and prosperity. 

Which makes them a tremendous, even natural ally for the West. 

A great opportunity exists: the West can have a tremendous relationship with an important part of ‘the Muslim world’ without having to compromise much on its ideals and principles. Turkic peoples and countries welcome foreign investments and assistance. 

When will it seize this opportunity?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.