Fatma Yilmaz Elmas USAK Center for EU Studies printable version send your friend

Friday, 27 January 2012

Racism, in the modern age, is no longer a phenomenon related to the concepts of “race” and “race relations” through which “the others” are targeted as biologically inferior. Anyway, already in the 1950s and 1960s, following a multitude of research and a series sessions, UNESCO refuted the scientific basis of racism, namely biological racism, indicating that there is no such difference between human races. However, this fact does not, of course, mean that there is no racism and racist behaviors or feelings all over the world. Rather, its current and “modern” version is a sort of covert or subtle racism, occurring in different familiar forms of discrimination.

New racism refers to a social phenomenon and includes so many different components mostly related to cultural differences and welfare distribution. In concurrence with fast-track changes in the world system and social order, the tangible factors that racism is based on have varied over time from the biological to the economic, sociological and cultural. In our day, this is why racism is a complex issue which suffers from a lack of clear visibility and data on racist crimes in order to create awareness, especially throughout Europe. Moreover, this is why for example, for some, Islamophobia is a new kind of racism as is the expulsion of the Roma living in France as a result of President Sarkozy’s populist policies.

For me, literally spoken “infra-racism” is the most dangerous one since it is mostly disguised in different behaviors and easy to defend. Certain opinions and prejudice are more xenophobic and populist than strictly speaking racist, and do not reference racial doctrines. Therefore, it is not that easy to figure out the problem. This is why, for some, widespread but often covert racism particularly throughout Europe represents a glass wall that only a few can both see and climb over.

Sarkozy ‘the Brave’

French President Nicholas Sarkozy in 21st century Europe is someone who fits the aforementioned profile via his populist policies, in practice which have led to a systemic differentiation of either individuals or groups. Policies such as the Roma expulsions and banning the burqa are the results of Sarkozy’s populist mentality in the ethno-cultural sense.

The French bill criminalizing denial of the so-called “Armenian genocide” is his latest step in including populist tactics for the upcoming presidential elections and, more importantly, emphasizing that his ethno-centric or cultural approach is never at peace with Ottoman history. This approach has led Sarkozy to examine historical questions in the parliament, and also resulted in him being found in violation of freedom of expression as per the European Convention of Human Rights.

Ethicists, historians, and legislators subscribing to common sense in Europe, have all expressed unease at seeing a parliament create legally binding analyses and definitions of historical events. They challenge the bill with the view that it is not the business of criminal law to clear up historical issues. This is also what was said in Turkey as a reaction to Sarkozy’s bill.

Can Sarkozy really be unaware of the fact that this is a historical issue requiring historical research? Also, is he so brave as to bring such an issue to a European trial after having violated freedom of expression just for the sake of populism to get the votes of the Armenian electorate?

Not that simple. It is the xenophobic motives or Euro/Franco-centric approach behind Sarkozy’s bill. Moreover, that is also not just about to get the votes of Armenians. It is about to attract the attention of generally far-right groups in France where xenophobia is on rise once again due to several socio-economic reasons. This is an emphasis also made by Etyen Mahcupyan, a Turkish-Armenian political columnist.

Then, was Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s response to Monday’s vote for the bill in France reasonable enough? To a great extent, yes.

Just to remind, after the bill was passed in the Senate, Erdogan addressed French politicians, intellectuals and the French people saying that “The vote in the Senate and the bill itself is openly discriminatory and racist and a massacre of freedom of thought in an effort to win votes by playing on anti-Turkish sentiment.” 

One Note to Sarkozy

Such a populist approach and far-right tendency mostly serves the French far right, the real owner of the xenophobic votes. This happened when Sarkozy opened a debate on national identity at the end of 2009 with an effort to get the vote of far-right supporters. In contrast, in the cantonal elections in March 2010, it was not Sarkozy, but Le Pen who got the votes. In other words, the populist debates emphasizing extreme French nationalism brought in votes for Le Pen’s FN, the real owner of this kind of rhetoric.

To sum up, Sarkozy’s populist approach already backfired once in 2010 by having let Le Pen increase his votes. Most probably, the same thing will happen in the upcoming presidential elections. So the thing for Sarkozy to consider at this point is what seems more profitable: the short-minded populist idea to get the far right’s support, though not overwhelmingly, or deadlocking French-Turkish relations at the expense of one of the basic values of European human rights.   

Fatma Yilmaz-Elmas, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania/USA
Researcher, USAK Center for EU Studies & Center Associate, University of Pittsburgh, EU Center of Excellence