In today’s deeply polarized Turkey, where both the government and its opposition were once equally passionate in their dislike for George W. Bush’s policies, there seem to be no qualms about having adopted his Manichean dictum "You're either with us or against us" — the mutual distaste for nuance can be suffocating to mid-tone voices. So, now that the long-awaited verdict of the Ergenekon trial is met with clashing cries of triumphalism and revolt, hearing the occasional “Yes, but …” and “If only …” is strangely refreshing.
Not that ambivalence is a good thing per se. Indeed, these days in Turkey it reflects a frustration with the judicial process. Those of us who believed that the trial had given the system a major chance at cleansing are disappointed with the court’s failure to shed light on the state’s crimes against the Kurds in the southeast and the assassination of the journalist Hrant Dink. There is also concern that the many flaws in the process made the fairness of some sentences questionable. As Emma Sinclair-Webb wrote in The New York Times, “The trial was a milestone in civilian control over the military,” but “it did not serve to promote a more democratic culture.”
