What is demanded now of Turkey is an enthusiastic embrace of free markets and free trade coupled with government frugality to fuel long-term and enduring prosperity. That novelty in Turkish history would be twice-blessed: it would stiletto pervasive government corruption and prodigality intrinsic to heavy-handed business regulation; and, it would spread wealth more evenly by making its pivot skill, foresight, and industry, not high level political influence beyond the reach of ordinary Turkish citizens.

Adam Smith lectured more than two centuries ago in The Wealth of Nations that light taxation coupled with free enterprise were the invariable earmarks of economic growth and national affluence. Experience has proven Smith as inerrant as Einstein's theory of relativity. The reason stands on human nature, not some woolly academic theory dreamed up by self-proclaimed gnomes never entrusted with operating a business. Mankind has craved and courted wealth as far back as the Golden calf of the Old Testament. The rare exceptions, like Jesus or Mother Teresa, prove the rule. Have your ever encountered a seller willing to sell at below the maximum he can wheedle from a purchaser, or an employee willing to toil for less than the maximum he can command? And government policy must be crafted for the generality of the species, not the mutants.

Private cupidity, however, is happily married to the public interest in consumer welfare in free market economies. Its satisfaction can come only by producing goods and services at prices consumer's desire, verified by their voluntary subtractions of their savings to augment that of sellers. If the producer is not forthcoming on that score, bankruptcy will be around the corner. That frightens the producer into potentially greener economic fields, or ends a waste of real economic resources in a Sahara desert. Bankruptcy is the proper answer for producers who are squandering a nation's assets for merchandise or services at prices consumers will not pay. Indeed, nations with both high bankruptcy and high business formation rates, like the United States, are typically the wealthiest; the poorest and most backward, like the Soviet Union, are typified by zero insolvencies and sluggish new business ventures.

Despite its virtues, governments are eternally tempted to hack at free product and labor markets with slabs of government-controlled monopoly enterprises, heavy regulation and licensing schemes, and social welfare extravagance. The reasons are manifold. The more citizens are dependent on government favors for their livelihoods, the more their political docility, manipulation and disinclination to dissent. Government-controlled monopoly businesses are cherished as opportunities for sinecures delivered to political cronies and rewards for political allies. A legal monopoly is required to prevent private market competition, which would otherwise drive the government venture into bankruptcy. Heavy regulation of prices or wages and complex licensing schemes to enter various businesses or occupations are ogled at by government officials because of the rich opportunities for bribes or extortion to supplement often miserly salaries in exchange for a business advantage.

Governments and their economic Houdinis, of course, will never confess their genuine motivations or inability to improve upon free competitive markets. It would cost them political popularity and handsome economic consulting fees. Thus, all sorts of Marxist, Keynesian, and even religious orthodoxies are preached to justify government manipulation of free consumer and producer choices. None have ever succeeded. If they had, every government in the world would race like a gazelle to welcome that Philosopher's stone with open arms. The annals of economics fail to record a single instance of a government official or economic adviser promising to commit suicide or exhaust their private estates if their panaceas shipwrecked and failed to return with riches of Jason's Argonauts. That testifies to their disbelief in their own economic elixirs. To recapitulate, human nature explains both the peerless consumer benefits of free market economics and its fierce resistance by individual politicians and economic gurus. The statesman must work with both apercus in crafting a nation's economic course. With regard to Turkey, the following medicine is thus indicated to treat its chronic economic fitfulness.

The Constitution should be amended to prohibit any public or private legally guaranteed monopolies. Government enterprises should likewise be prohibited, especially in broadcasting where a free marketplace of ideas is indispensable to democratic well-being.

The Constitution should likewise guarantee open entry into all lines of commerce, except where supreme national interests are at stake, such as national defense. Wages and benefits should be determined by voluntary bargaining between employers and employees individually, not collectively unless agreed to by all parties. Easily circumvented income taxes should be replaced by a national sales tax or value added tax to promote both tax fairness and to hike aggregate revenue collection. Further, the Constitution should mandate a balanced budget unless a two-thirds consensus of the National Assembly votes a deficit. Finally, a constitutional ceiling on government spending should be set at a modest percentage of Turkey's gross domestic product in the range of 8-10 percent.

Depend upon it, if these politically bold measures were undertaken, Turkey would never again need to kneel before the IMF begging for alms!

Constitutional scholar and Attorney Bruce Fein is also a well-known media commentator and an ATAA Adjunct Scholar.

Turkey at the Start of 2002
M. Orhan Tarhan [Editor's Note: This article was prepared for publication at New Year, but was delayed until now. We are printing it unchanged because nothing in it has since changed.] - This is an attempt of looking at Turkey at the start of the Year 2002 and of comparing it with a year ago. I will be looking at the government, at the economy, and finally at the people.

Mr. Stephen Kinzer, New York Times' former reporter in Turkey, recently wrote a very interesting book about Turkey, appropriately called "Crescent and Star". He comes through as a man who liked Turks and Turkey. He says that Turkey has a great future but its government is preventing it to happen. That is a sort of loving criticism, the sort of criticism you would read in this column. I feel pretty bad that I have to agree with this particular opinion of Mr. Kinzer.

As I wrote last year, the government of Turkey is still run by an old sickly prime minister. He surpassed himself in incompetence during the year 2001. He did nothing when a total of $17 billion were stolen from Turkish banks by people connected to big shots. That, of course, caused an economic crisis. The prime minister caused an other needless economic crisis, after being criticized by the President of The Republic in a meeting of the National Security Council, for not doing anything against corruption. When he got out of that meeting, he said to the press "This is a crisis!" and, immediately, the value of the Turkish Lira dropped about 40 %. In one sentence he made the Turkish people 40 % poorer. Anywhere else, any prime minister that would make such a catastrophic blunder would immediately resign, but not Mr. Ecevit! He is still there, heading the weakest government in the history of the Republic of Turkey and making it weaker by the day.. This weakness is permeating all the activities of his government. In the dispute with NATO about the European military force, Turkey finally softened its position and agreed with the European Union (EU). In the long-time disagreement on Cyprus, suddenly, Turkey abandoned under pressure its well-know position. Of course Mr.Ecevit's government has no more strength left to withstand any pressure by its allies. As we will see further below, it was depending on the economic assistance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for its survival.

The government of Mr. Ecevit is still being criticized by the President of the Republic. It must be very hard for a man of integrity to see a lot of wrongs and corruption around him and not to say anything. Now the press is questioning whether the president should behave like the opposition and criticize the government. Shouldn't he really be neutral as the constitution demands? Other journalists are urging the president to criticize as much as he can. After all, the same constitution demands that the president oversees the state. The fact is that the President is filling a vacuum. There is no opposition which does its job. Besides Mr.Ecevit does not take any criticism. Thus, only the president is left to criticize the government and he is still doing a hopeless and thankless job. In that world of midgets, President Ahmet Necdet Sezer comes out as the only giant, the only hero.

The Parliament made several changes in the Turkish constitution to get in line with the EU, but still did not change the unfortunate election law. Thus, Partycracy is still alive and well. And nobody can budge Mr. Ecevit from his place.

We see that the executive branch of the government is hopeless. Then maybe there might be some hope with the legislative branch, the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA). Mr. Kinzer's book has an assessment of it. He reports about one of the commanders of the Turkish Armed Forces complain about the parliamentarians. "Those people in the Parliament are idiots", says the Commander, "They don't know anything about government or Turkey or the World. The only thing they want is to steal money in their own litle ways, to build their own little empires. Public good? Forget it. Planning for the future? Never think about it. Duty or integrity? Unknown. You should see the defense ministers they send us! They hardly know a tank from a plane. And those are the MINISTERS. The rest are even worse. Their intellectual level is incredibly low. How can anyone expect us to take orders from people like that? Turkey would never forgive us if we did." Mr. Kinzer heard this burst of accusations in horror, but then found out that they were true. Actually, I am not surprised at all. In the system of Partycracy, only people who are listed by the party bosses make to the parliament. These are people who never criticize the party boss. They are yes-men. Self-respecting people who have a personal opinion of things would never be listed by a party boss in the list of candidates peoples' representatives. So only the kind of people described by the commander in Mr .Kinzer's book would get to the Parliament. The only way to change it is to elect the candidates for peoples' representatives in primary elections by the peoples. Then, suddenly, the quality of people getting to the parliament would change. They will be really representatives of the people and not yes-men of the party boss. Such a change would make Turkey a democracy. Turkey is still a Partycracy which is a dictatorship of party bosses.

Turkey's economy was very bad before the artificial crisis created by Mr. Ecevit. The crisis brought the Lira 40 % below that level. The IMF came to the rescue "for the last time"

Mr. Ecevit's government still did not take the necessary measures to slim the government. Then came September 11, and the bottom fell out of the U.S. economy. Still America has helped. Of course, what is being called "help" is not outright gift, but loans, each time about $10 billion (not million, with B , billions) I wonder how the Turkish people will ever pay back all that money. The Turkish private enterprise has restructured itself, it got real lean. But the government is still buying more office cars, and is getting fatter. Here is where the money is going: Each party has stuffed its supporters in the bureaucracy of some ministry or in some government-owned utility or manufacture. In all these places there are three to four times more employees than it is really necessary. The parties do not want to fire the surplus, because these people are the source of their votes. So, most of the IMF money is going to support the supporters of the political parties. The Turkish government has become a financial black hole. No matter how many billions are loaned, the economy is still not improving. We can see who is ruining the Turkish economy.

Since Mr. Ecevit's artificial crisis, buying and selling of homes has almost stopped.

No one has any money for it. After September 11, it got even worse. Thus, Turks are considerably worse off than the year before.

Now, what do the Turkish people do about this whole mess? Absolutely nothing! In a country that has been bragging to be a democracy, the people docilely accept any action by the government, no matter how ill-advised, corrupt, or destructive it is. By the way, besides the writings of a few columnists, there is no criticism of the government. Criticism by the common people is not tolerated at all. The police interferes and badly bloodies the critics, no matter how peaceful the criticism is made.

This is the state of the Republic of Turkey at the start of the year 2002.. We should not expect any improvement in the year 2003, unless the election law is changed and Partycracy is abolished.

A Muslim cannot be a Terrorist and a Terrorist cannot be a Muslim
"The believer in God is he who is not a danger to the life and property of any other."
Prof. Dr. Ahmet Akgunduz, Rector, Islamic University of Rotterdam Netherlands - I would like to convey my deep condolences to the American people for their grief, which is really the grief of the humanity, due to this terrible tragedy. May God soon heal all the wounds, and protect us from any evil.

My first reaction to this tragedy was to recite a verse of the Qur'an. Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin, this is emphasized by the following Qur'anic verse: "... whoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption and mischief in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth" (the Qur'an, 5: 32). In fact, Muslims serve for life, not for death.

We must not forget what the Qur'an states: "Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another" (6: 164). There is a universal rule of law: No one can be punished without evidence. Another important rule: Freedom from guilt is principal, i.e. everybody is innocent unless the opposite is proved. The Prophet, is reported to have said, "A believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn't kill another person illegally.

"The meaning of Islam is peace." This signifies that one can achieve real peace of body and mind only through submission and obedience to Allah, and a human being can be a perfect Muslim if he or she lives in peace and harmony with society. Such a life of obedience brings peace of heart and establishes real peace in society at large (the Qur'an, 13: 28-29). All the Prophets of God, who guided man to the right path, preached this message.

The Prophet said: "These three things are also enjoined upon the faithful: - to help others, even when one is economically hard-pressed, - to pray ardently for the peace of all mankind, and - to administer justice to one's own self."

The Prophet said: "All mankind is a fold, each member of which shall be a keeper or shepherd to every other, and be accountable for the entire fold."

"Live together; do not turn against each other; make things easy for others and do not put obstacles in each other's way."

"He is not a believer who takes his fill while his neighbor starves. "

"The believer in God is he who is not a danger to the life and property of any other."

In short, Islam neglects neither the individual nor society - it establishes a harmony and balance between the two and assigns to each its proper due. The message of Islam is for the whole human race. God, in Islam, is the God of the Universe (the Qur'an, 1:1) and the Prophet is a Messenger for the whole mankind. In the words of the Quran:

"O People! I am but a Messenger from God to you all. (7: 158) We have sent you only as a mercy for everybody in the universe."(21:107).

In Islam, all men are equal, regardless of color, language, race, or nationality. We can not deny the fact that such barriers have always existed and will exist in the so-called enlightened age. Islam removes all of these impediments, and proclaims the ideal notion for humanity as being one family of God. Islam is international in its outlook and approach, and does not admit barriers and distinctions based on color, clan, blood, or territory, as was the case before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad.

We, as Islamic scholars, condemn this mischief against human life. Our hearts bleed for the attacks that has targeted innocent people. The haphazard killing where the rough is taken with the smooth and where innocents are killed along with wrongdoers is totally forbidden in Islam. No one, as far as Islam is concerned, is held responsible for another's actions.

I categorically go against a committed Muslim's embarking on such attacks. Islam never allows a Muslim to kill the innocent and the helpless. If such attacks were carried out by some Muslims - as some groups claim - then we, in the name of our religion, deny the act and incriminate the perpetrators. We do confirm that the aggressors deserve the deterrent punishment irrespective of their religion, race or gender.

Let us suppose that you were on a ship, or in a house, with nine innocent people and one criminal. If someone were to try to make the ship sink, or to set the house on fire, because of that criminal, you know how great a sinner he would be. You would cry out to the heavens against his sinfulness. Even if there were one innocent man and nine criminals aboard the ship, it would be against all rules of justice to sink it. We condemn these brutal and criminal acts which are anathema to all human conventions and values and the monotheist religions.

Don't Call Them Arabs
Ramadan in Istanbul
Barbara Lerner, National Review Online, January 30, 2002 - Who are these "Muslim allies" our State Department keeps talking about? Do we have any, in any fundamental, shared-values sense? Millions of Americans saw the Arab street explode with joy on September 11. Millions more read excerpts from the government-controlled press in allegedly friendly Arab countries, all spitting out the same blame-the-West conspiracy theories -we "had it coming," "the CIA did it," "the Jews did it." Most of us drew the obvious conclusion: that "Arab ally" is, at best, an oxymoron. And beyond the Arab world, what? Leaders of Pakistan and Indonesia seem less Janus-faced than those in Arab lands, but American flags burned in their streets too after we struck back in Afghanistan. So it's tempting for Americans to think that "Arab allies" and "Muslim allies" aren't really all that different, and to want to put quote-marks around both.

Is that unfair when it comes to Turkey - a Muslim nation of 66 million? From a distance, Turkey looks like a Muslim ally for whom no quote-marks are needed. That, at any rate, is what the record suggests, and I tried to believe it. But doubts kept creeping in. Sure, Turkey is a member of NATO; yes, Turkey was with us in the Gulf War; okay, we couldn't have done what we've done in Iraq, then and since, without the use of her air base at Incirlik. All that speaks well for the Turkish government, and for the mighty Turkish military that keeps the Turkish government on the secular path laid out, 75 years ago, by Ataturk. But what, really, does it tell us about the attitudes and feelings of ordinary Turks? About the values on display in the Turkish street? After Sept. 11 I checked and rechecked the wire services, but couldn't find a single report of Turks dancing in streets when the World Trade Towers came crashing down. I did, finally, find one report of a demonstration against our bombing campaign in Afghanistan, but it was orderly and small - hundreds, not thousands - and no flags were burnt. Still, I wasn't convinced. Was the Turkish street really sickened by the attack on America? Was the press just not paying attention? Or did they look, but see nothing, because Turks were too afraid of their own government to express their hatred of us openly, the way so many other Muslims did?

I couldn't be sure, so I decided to subject Turkey to my own test. It's the Flo-Jay tough-times tourism test, and what it measures is whether a vulnerable American proxy can feel perfectly safe and comfortable in that country - not just in ordinary times, but in tough ones, when the economy is tanking, the population is hurting, and Muslim religious feeling is running high because it's a holy month. Flo-Jays are frail little old Jewish-American ladies, and they make ideal testers because they're twofers-plus, representing both the great Satan, America, and the little one, Israel - as well as women. My own demographics are right for the job, and in November, the timing seemed right too: Turkey was struggling with a 70 percent rise in inflation and a 70 percent drop in tourism. So I packed up my tennis shoes and flew to Istanbul on Turkish Airlines during Ramadan. And - to make the test a tough one - for a Flo-Jay - I decided to spend my time there without coming within spitting distance of a luxury hotel or guided tour.

Timid soul that I am, I wouldn't think of trying this test in an Arab land in the wake of Sept. 11, but from my armchair at home, a visit to Turkey seemed like a reasonably prudent move - not just because the Turkish government is on our side, but because there are two great differences between Turks and Arabs, one religious, the other historical. And, from a theoretical perspective, I thought those differences ought to have a positive impact on the Turkish street. Take religion. Unlike their Muslim brothers elsewhere, mainstream Turkish Muslims never relied on the Koran alone, or on interpretations of it by imams - past or present. Turks have a long history of incorporating local tradition into their religious practices, and local tradition in Turkey is light years from Wahhabi austerity or Shiite fanaticism. Take music, for instance, and dancing: Anathema to so many Muslims elsewhere, they have always been an integral part of Muslim life in Turkey, and that struck me as a hopeful sign.

Turkish history is different too, because the Turkish response to the decline of Islamic civilization and the rise of the Christian West was the polar opposite of the Arabic one. In the 1920s, when Turkey's long, slow decline hit bottom, the heirs of the once-mighty Ottoman empire made a decision that set them apart. Despite being besieged on all sides by Western nations intent, not just on stripping them of their empire, but on carving up what was left of their ancestral homeland too, the Turks decided that Western infidels were not their main problem, and that the decadence, corruption, and backwardness of their own society was. Taking this insight to its logical conclusion, Turks realized that what their country needed was sweeping reform, not festering rage or sour revenge. Led by the mighty Ataturk, they deposed their last sultan, rallied their army to repel the British at Gallipoli, and then took a series off bold, rapid steps, intended to transform Turkey from a dying empire into a modern republic. Their goal was to cast their lot with the West and become a part of it, without losing their Muslim identity - to preserve the best from their past, import the best the West had to offer, integrate the two into a unique, Turkish brand of modernity, and then dump everything that didn't fit, as unceremoniously as Istanbul dumps its garbage into the Bosporus.

Very nice, on paper, but did it work? Does it still? Can a Flo-Jay feel it, in the Turkish street? Believe it; you can, at least in Istanbul, a city of 13 million. At first, it seems fairly intimidating, because it's such a huge, sprawling,_and hilly place, but people in the street were sweetly helpful. Shawl-wrapped or bare-headed, they went far out of their way-to help a bare-headed, pantsuited stranger find hers in a city that outgrew all of its maps centuries ago. That, at any rate, was my experience - not just in tourist centers like Sultanahmet or modern, commercial areas like Beyoglu, but in neighborhoods like Balat and Fener too, working-class residential neighborhoods all the guidebooks had described as strongholds of a rising Muslim conservatism. Tired of walking the streets? Stop for lunch. The special, fast-breaker lentil soup is a terrific restorative - chicken soup on steroids - and in Istanbul restaurants, fasting waiters cheerfully serveit to non-fasting fellow Turks and tourists alike.

Still, I was nervous, entering my first mosque right after lunch, because it was Friday, and the noon prayers were just ending. All over the Muslim world, that's the time when infidels are least welcome. But my fears were groundless - the faithful couldn't have been nicer. The fun really began, however, when the sun went down. Istanbul's Muslims don't just quietly break their fasts at home. Whole families spill out into the streets to celebrate in ways that turn this ancient crossroads city into a party town. And what a party it is. Street musicians play, balloons fly, colored lights twinkle, and people of all ages sing and sway and laugh and dance. There's cotton candy for the kids too - sold in front of Constantine's pillar, no less. Best of all, these are parties anyone can join; indeed, if you walk alone past one of these Ramadan celebrations at night, you're hard-pressed not to. Strangers welcome you, offer you tea and fruit punch, and urge you to try a few of the inexhaustible variety of appetizers Turks call mezes. No wonder Osama bin Laden calls them "the infidel Turks." Most of them answer the meuzzins call, five times a day, just as he does, but this is not his father's brand of Islam.

Okay, then, the Islam of the Turks really is different, at least in Istanbul. But what about their worldview? To test that out, I asked many Turks from different walks of life what they saw as the cause of their current troubles. Why was their economy in such terrible shape? Why was a single American dollar worth such a mind-boggling number of Turkish lira? Every one I asked gave me the same answer: "It's because our political system is so corrupt, and our politicians are so incompetent. Honest Turks won't run for office; it would ruin their reputations. They stay in the private sector or become professional soldiers - the army is our pride and joy, the guardian of Ataturk's legacy, but our political system is a disaster." And though I tried hard to push beyond this, I couldn't get a single Turk to pin the blame on outsiders. Tales of American imperialist plots and Zionist conspiracies just don't fly here. Indeed, they give Turks the giggles - because all Turks know why their country's economy is such a mess and will say so, plainly, to anyone who asks. Ordinary Turks display the same refreshing honesty about their own failings. A twenty something lung surgeon I met was typical in this respect. On learning I was a psychologist, she told me that her aggressiveness was scaring off all the men she knew and asked if I thought it was genetic. I said I thought it probably had more to do with the fact that female surgeons are still pretty rare in Turkey - maybe she had had to develop a certain aggressiveness to buck the trend. "Oh no," she laughed merrily: "I was hyper-aggressive as a toddler too."

Still, I worried that my view of Turkey and the Turks might be too sanguine. So I sought out Turkish Jews and quizzed them at length about the difficulties they face, living in an overwhelmingly Muslim country - but again I came up empty. Like their Muslim counterparts, Turkish Jews weren't shy about spelling out their country's faults - their diagnosis was, in fact, exactly the same: Most of our politicians are bums. But they all insisted that they had no special problems as Jews, because there was no anti-Semitism in Turkey. "Sure," they acknowledged, "there were instances of discrimination in the past, notably, the special taxes that wiped out so much Jewish wealth in Turkey in the 1940s - but those taxes were imposed on all Turkish minorities, wiping out Greeks and Armenians too, in a perfectly even-handed way. And since then, we've had no problems here that other Turks don't share." "Well," I said, "there was that incident in 1984 when terrorists burst into Istanbul's Neva Shalom synagogue and mowed down 28 worshippers." "Yes," my informants said, "but those men spoke Arabic, not Turkish."

Well and good. But the clincher, for me, was finding the ubiquitous Turkish protective symbol - the blue, black, and white evil eye - on the ribbons that bound the little boxes of sweets given out to guests at the Bar Mitzvah ceremony I witnessed at Neva Shalom. The idea behind the symbol is one that all the Turks I met subscribed to: The way to protect yourself from evil is not to hide from it, but to look straight into its unblinking eye, recognize it for what it is - in yourself and in others - and deal with it up front. That's a quintessentially Turkish idea, and it's a far cry from the kind of blameless-hopeless-helpless victim mentality that is so all-pervasive in the Arab world, and so beloved by our liberal elites at home.

It is, instead, so close to the traditional American spirit of plain-spoken honesty and sturdy self-reliance that it gives me great faith that Turkish-American friendship will survive all tests, because it is based on shared fundamental values.