Turkish pianist controversy has many facets
While world-renowned pianist Fazil Say faces challenges performing in Turkey, there are growing questions about whether he handled this controversy wisely.
Fazil Say is a world-renowned pianist. He has been in confrontation with the government for the last two years. The tension recently reached a new height when Say’s works were removed from the 2014-15 Presidential Symphonic Orchestra program. This was outright censorship of an artist’s work. As Fehim Tastekin observed in his Oct. 27 article, this was not the first spat between Say and the government. In one of his Twitter messages in 2012, Say criticized the government over corruption, citing a verse from the Persian poet Omar Khayyam. This was even before the December 2013 graft probe surfaced. Say was found guilty in 2013 for his Khayyam citation, on the grounds that he was “openly denigrating religious values.” He received a suspended 10-month jail sentence.
Say’s global fame and the ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) power clearly clashed. Just as the Hollywood stars sometimes do, Say used his stardom to attract critical attention to government’s policies.
Say decided to take center stage rallying against this government, further emphasizing the widening divide in the country between those who appreciate the values of this republic and those who do not. This divide could also be expressed in local language as Kemalists — those in support of the principles set forth by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founding father of the Turkish Republic — versus those in support of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who appears to Kemalists as one trying to tear down every futuristic goal set forth by the founding father for perfecting the democratic standards of the country and Islamizing both governance and public life.
Due to this divisive, poisonous atmosphere in the country, Say appeared as the face of one side. Or, that is how he thought to position himself. This is not the whole story, however, and should not be. There are different layers to this story. First, the issue is not about Say as a performer, but Say as a person. He takes a position against the politicians in power, and when they abuse their authority, he hits back. Say then presents this as proof of how the government’s democratic maturity record has failed. There certainly is no question that there are serious problems about that, but the lack of questioning about Say’s behavior and attitudes seem to deserve some real questioning. It is not a given that whatever Say does is right in this complex puzzle.
