The transparency of
the Hizmet or Gülen Movement has long been a theme of various critics –
writers, intellectuals and politicians. In the context of Turkey where
secularism is deployed as a means to control religion rather than to separate
it from politics, it is not hard to understand why this theme has been so
popular. Since Ataturk placed severest legal restrictions on religious
institutions and important sites (like graveyards and religious centres), all
religious groups were banned. In order to exist all, have been forced to give
themselves a make-over. Some, such as the Mevlevis (Rumi), Bektashis and
Alavis, were more successful than others about re-organizing themselves as
charities and NGOs at securing the approval of the authorities. However, some
other groups, which were not successful enough to establish their legitimate
existence stayed at shades or fade away by time.
Hizmet emerged in
this climate as a religiously inspired post-modern movement that was not
formally defined or organized but nevertheless survived without conflict with
the existing structures. After all, it was a group of people trying to engage
in every aspect of life without compromising their religious commitments. The
transparency question was continually raised but the Movement’s volunteers were
able to answer for themselves and satisfy the authorities, even when the
questioning took the form of an exhaustingly long judicial process.
Hizmet has never
faced any form of judicial scrutiny outside of Turkey, be it on the basis of
its transparency or otherwise or on any other matter. . This is mainly because
the people in the Movement conducts all their activities according to the rules
and regulations of the country concerned and is open to any kind of inspection.
Nevertheless, anxieties remain about the transparency of the Movement in some
circles. There are a number of reasons why these anxieties persist:
1) The difference in mind set. In the Western world, intensely competitive
self-interest – required and driven by the way contemporary capitalist markets
work – has eroded the values and traditions of service to others, in the family
or in society at large. Concepts like altruism and sacrifice for the benefit of
others are no longer considered “normal” and therefore viewed with suspicion.
If there are people who are very active but not motivated by self-interest, if
they are engaged in the “pursuit of happiness” but through altruism rather than
hedonism, it is supposed that they must have a “secret” or “hidden” agenda
which does fit the “norm” of selfish motivation. In other words, such people,
it is supposed, are not being “transparent”. The modern “norm” is a paradigm
that does not, perhaps cannot, recognize that serving others is a way, aside
from its usefulness to community, to find contentment and peace. For the Hizmet
volunteers, the norm is derived from a different paradigm: for them, effort in
this life is a means of winning success in the afterlife. They see this world
as a place where seeds are planted, whose fruits they will harvest in the world
to come. This difference in paradigm is a major obstacle to understanding
Hizmet and the commitment of its volunteers.
2) An unstructured movement: Unlike civil society organizations in the Western
world, Hizmet is a grassroots movement, not a formally structured,
centrally-run organization. In Western societies, a great deal of energy is
committed to preparing and planning – this can be a long, complicated process
involving the marshalling of all the necessary means and resources before the
plan can be executed. As a result of that process, these societies, albeit very
efficient when they act, are sometimes slow to move in response to the needs
that are there. The approach of the Hizmet volunteers is different. They
proceed from a strong belief that God will help and sustain their effort and
bring it to fruition in the future. Thus they do not prepare and plan but not
begin until all the means and resources are in place. Rather, they have their
inspirational sources, their ideas and good will, and they make a start with
whatever means they have to hand in whatever situation they find themselves.
They say: “Our duty is to strive and it is God who wills and guides the
outcomes from our striving.” The absence of a central planning body which tells
the volunteers what to do is another reason why the success and dynamism of the
Hizmet movement puzzles observers who cannot understand how diverse people
working autonomously in diverse locations can achieve outcomes that are
coherent and mutually supportive.
3) Being for and not against: The Hizmet volunteers share a new perspective,
first clearly formulated in modern times by Said Nursi, namely that it is
essential to be positively in favour of doing good, of making a constructive
contribution to society, rather than seeking to criticize what is wrong or to
fight against others or against the whole “system”. Nursi taught that it is
more important to support and take part in constructive activities rather than
negative, destructive activities. Those who criticize may well be right in
their judgement but it does not follow that they also have the will or the
power to establish something good to put in the place of what they are
criticizing. Thus every positive contribution is valuable, however small it may
seem to the individual making it, and if this attitude is sustained over time,
it comes to be shared by others, and the small contributions then add up.
4) Being out of sight: Given the power to publicize things that new
communications technologies have made available, it is common for volunteers
and their organizations to put out as much publicity as they can, to make bold
“mission statements” and announce and promote themselves. In the Hizmet
movement, the emphasis is on people fulfilling their responsibilities towards
God by actively serving the community. Accordingly, they pay less attention to
public relations and more to the particular service they have engaged to
provide. This means that the Hizmet volunteers do not seek the limelight for
themselves, individually or as a group. They do not have a general “mission” or
a general “image”, as so many organizations do and which they actively promote.
Rather, the Hizmet volunteers have a particular service that they are trying to
provide to the highest standard within their capacities. If they want attention
at all, it is for that service, not for themselves. Given the widespread
culture of competing for attention or celebrity, the fact that Hizmet
volunteers stay out of sight is another factor prompting anxieties about
“transparency”.
Those
are the four main reasons why critics of the Hizmet movement are (or claim to
be) so concerned about its transparency. And yet the solution to their anxiety
is simple. The Movement is, and has always been, very open to any kind of
dialogue with and questioning by others. Nobody can claim to have a problem of
transparency when the Movement is itself keen that others find out about it
and, if they want to and only to the extent that they want to, contribute to
its culture of service. That, after all, is precisely how Hizmet has grown.
*This article has also published in:
http://www.athought.info/2011/08/gulen-movement-and-transparency
http://www.gulenmovement.us/gulen-movement-and-transparency.html
