CC BY
0МИРОВАЯ ПОЛИТИКИ И МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ
DOI 10.24412/cl-37234-2024-1-298-305
"WE ARE ALL ARMENIAN": THE ASSASSINATION OF HRANT DINK AS A FACTOR OF POLITICAL MOBILIZATION
IN TURKEY
A. Ghazakhetsyan
Russian-Armenian (Slavonic) Universit Institute of Law and Politics (ILP) anahitghazakhetsyan@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This article discusses the political mobilization and effects of Hrant Dink's murder on the Armenian community living in Turkey. It highlights the paper's relevance, which lies in the efforts of Turkish society and minorities to seek justice for Dink's murder, even 15 years after the incident. It also sheds light on the Hrant Dink Foundation, established in 2007 to continue Dink's aspirations and struggles, with a focus on promoting equality for children and young people, fostering cultural ties between Turkey, Armenia, and Europe, and encouraging the writing of histories free of nationalism and racism. Additionally, the article discusses the concept of framing in social movements, using diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framing, to analyze the movement sparked by Dink's murder. Keywords: Hrant Dink, Armenia, Hrant Dink Foundation, Mobilization, Movements.
Introduction
Hrant Dink, known as the "White Dove" of Turkey, was born in Malatya, received his education in Istanbul, and worked for 11 years as editor of the first Turkish-Armenian weekly, AGOS. He was one of Turkey's few public critics of the government, the country's denial of the Armenian Genocide, and both Armenians and the West for many years. Hrant Dink, who was by far the most prominent member of the Turkish-Armenian community, disagreed with diaspora Armenians who thought the only way forward was to pressure national legislatures around the globe to adopt resolutions recognizing the genocide. His life was always in danger, particularly over the past ten years. On January 19, 2007, Hrant Dink was shot and killed in a crowded Istanbul street.
As Samuel Johnson has pointed out, death focuses attention and eliminates nonessential concerns from sight. The prospect of one's death, the death of a loved one, or even the death of a stranger (perhaps because she was a young child or because she died in a grisly manner) can arouse intense, urgent emotions, force one to affirm or reconsider basic values, and motivate political efforts (Jasper, James M., 1957).
In this paper, I would like to show the reasons why Hrant Dink's case politically mobilized Turkey and what effects it had on the Armenian community living in Turkey. Besides, I will discuss spontaneity in social movements and try to frame the movement through "diagnostic framing", "prognostic framing", and "motivational framing".
This paper's relevance stems from the fact that, even 15 years after Hrant Dink's murder, the Turkish community and other minorities continue to organize marches and call for a righteous investigation into the murder. Secondly, thousands of people walked out with signs reading "We are all Armenian, We are all Hrant Dink", which is a pair of phrases that have never been used in conjunction. This made the funeral march for Hrant Dink an unprecedented and entirely unexpected event in Turkey.
I will also shed light on the Hrant Dink Foundation, established in 2007 to continue Hrant's aspirations, struggles, language, and heart. As mentioned on the official website of the Foundation, it views the creation of a culture of dialogue, empathy, and peace as the cornerstone of all its activities, which are focused on promoting equality for children and young people, fostering cultural ties between the peoples of Turkey, Armenia, and Europe, assisting Turkey's democratization process, encouraging the writing of histories free of nationalism and racism, and gathering information, images, and documents about Turkey.
Background of the Movement: Why was Hrant Dink Targeted?
On January 21, two days after Dink's murder, 17-year-old Gün Samast, the "killer", was detained while still on the bus departing from Istanbul to Trabzon, with the murder weapon still in his hands. Dink was unknown to Samast. In the first hearing of the trial, the defendant asked the person who had directly ordered the killing why he had "done this to him." It appears that only after his arrest did he realize the reason for which he had been used. These incidents had an impact on Turkish public opinion, the nation's political establishment, and the press1.
The Hrant Dink trial quickly brought two significant political issues to light. The first was the tragic history of the Armenian minority in Turkey and its current
1 Lagendijk, Joost, 2009, Hrant Dink: A victim of intolerance and the quest for justice.
state, as well as the relations between Turkey and Armenia, which were key to Hrant Dink's activities and are now the subject of a heated debate. The second political problem, which concerns how the Turkish court system is handling the case, is also important because it sheds light on how Turkish society is changing. Because of how the security forces handled Hrant Dink, a critical journalist, a discussion about the law and the rule of law has begun in Turkey.
Ironically, the last article published before the assassination of Hrant Dink was entitled "Why was I targeted?"2. In this article, he explained that the beginning of the end was the Sabiha Gokcen story that appeared in Agos in February 2004. The Armenian relatives of Sabiha Gokcen, Ataturk's adopted daughter, claimed in an essay titled "The Secret of Sabiha Hatun" by Hrant Dink that she was an orphan adopted from an Armenian orphanage. The article was cited in a headline in Hurri-yet, Turkey's best-selling newspaper, on February 21, 2004, which shocked the nation. The statements came from several public organizations. As Hrant mentions in his article, the General Staff s written statement was the most significant declaration. In response to this revelation, the General Staff declared that "opening up a national icon like this to the discussion is a crime against national integrity and social peace, regardless of its goal". They believed that the authors of this piece had ill motives and were attempting to denigrate the reputation of a woman by depriving her of her Turkish identity. This woman had become a myth and a symbol for Turkish women. Who were these impolite individuals, and who was Hrant Dink? He has to be held accountable by someone.
We Are All Armenian, We Are All Hrant Dink
Funerals and death are prominent events. When defining the identities and ambitions of demonstrators, time and place are just as significant as existential limits on human existence3. On January 23, 2007, a whopping 200,000 people attended the funeral procession through Istanbul towards the Balkan Armenian cemetery. A Black Sea coast journalist then filed a complaint against the mayor of Istanbul's Sisli district for allowing people to carry and scream slogans that, in his opinion, violated Article 301. The article discusses the public denigration of Turkishness, the public denigration ofthe Turkish Republic's government, the state's judicial system,
2 Dink, Hrant, Why was I Targeted, Agos, January 12th, 2007. https://hrantdink.org/en/hrant-dink/hrant-dink-articles/728-why-was-i-targeted
3 Ibid, 113.
and the military or security apparatus4. With regard to the estimated number of Armenian victims of 1915 plus Hrant Dink, several protest banners from January 19 read "1,500,000 + 1".
During the following year, 2008, due to constant fear and a sense of being in danger, the Armenian community stayed silent. However, in 2009, the Armenian youth group Nor Zartonk issued a call to meet in his honor in mid-January 2009. On the wall, a large photograph had been cut into nine equal squares and put together like a disjointed puzzle. Pieces of Hrant's photographed face kept falling to the floor, necessitating Nor Zartonk members to perform the Sisyphean task of preserving Hrant's facial integrity while a friend of the Dink family explained the progress of the criminal trial against those who had planned and carried out his murder. The scene perfectly encapsulated Hrant's ominous, almost sensual omnipresence. Whenever a book of photography by the Hrant Dink Foundation was mentioned, his image was projected onto walls, his favorite music was played, and his writings were read aloud. Even voice recordings sounded at times. The day after this remembrance, a flash mob j oined together a number of people who did more than just talk about him; they actually became him by acting out his murder5.
Another political repercussion of this murder is that, for the first time, many academics and other influential Turks did not hesitate to criticise Turkey and express their views on the Armenian genocide. Three years later after Dink's death, the Armenian genocide was honored in Turkey on April 24, 2010, the first ever. Together with the co-organizers of Dink's burial and Baskn Oran's political campaign, intellectuals and influential people created a public forum for them to express their shared emotions6.
In the years that followed, remembrance marches were organized in the Turkish capital, where protesters demanded that article 301 be repealed, free speech be guaranteed, and all charges against journalists, writers, and editors like Dink, who are being persecuted for engaging in peaceful expression, be dropped Therefore, the death of Hrant Dink served as a clear trigger to start a continuous movement in Turkey.
4 Turkey: Article 301 is a threat to freedom of expression and must be repealed now! // Amnesty International Public Statement, 2005.
5 Von Bieberstein, A. (2017). Surviving Hrant Dink: Carnal Mourning under the Specter of Senselessness. Social Analysis, 61(1).
6 DemirhisarD. (2016) Emotion and protest in Turkey: what happened on 19 January, 2007? // Open Democracy / ISA RC-47: Open Movements, 11 December. https: //opendemoc-racy.net/deniz-g-nce-demirhisar/emotion-and-protest-in-turkey-what-happened-on-19-january-2007.
Spontaneity and framing of the movement
Spontaneity in social movements is highlighted in the paper "Protest on the Fly: Toward a Theory of Spontaneity in the Dynamics of Protest and Social Movements" by David Snow and Dana Moss. In the article, the authors mention that "spontaneity may be best understood as a cover term for events, happenings, and lines of action, both verbal and nonverbal, which were not planned, intended, prearranged or organized in advance of their occurrence." The authors also mention that individually or collectively, spontaneous actions can take place. Sometimes they can also be connected, such as when a spontaneous individual action prompts a spontaneous collective action. In either scenario, unplanned spontaneous activities happen and change the direction and nature of the encompassing collectivity7 .
Thus, we see that the movement that was arranged around Hrant Dink's murder was completely spontaneous, however, it became an annual organized march with various goals that I will discuss below.
Collective action frames are created in part as movement supporters negotiate a common understanding of a problematic condition or circumstance they characterize as needing change, assign responsibility, present alternative arrangements, and call for others to act jointly to bring about change. According to Snow & Benford (1988), these fundamental framing activities are "diagnostic framing", "prognostic framing" and "motivational framing," and they build on Wilson's (1973) division of ideology into three component elements8.
The two components of diagnostic framing are the diagnosis of an event, a component of social life, or a feature of the political system as problematic and in need of correction or reform, and the attribution of responsibility or blame for the prob-lematized condition of affairs. The questions of "What is or went wrong?" and "Who or what is to blame?" are answered by diagnostic framing. In prognostic framing, a proposed solution to the issue is defined, along with a strategy and frame-consistent methods for implementing it, and frequently, the opponent's present or prospective solutions are refuted9.
7 David A. and Dana M. Moss. Protest on the Fly: Toward a Theory of Spontaneity in the Dynamics of Protest and Social Movements. American Sociological Review 79, no. 6 (December 2014): 1122-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414554081.
8 BenfordR. & Snow D. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611-639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. soc.26.1.611
9 Snow D.A., VliegenthartR., & Ketelaars P. (2018). The Framing Perspective on Social Movements: Its Conceptual Roots and Architecture. In D.A. Snow, S.A. Soule, H. Kriesi & H. J. McCammon (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (1st ed. PP. 392-410). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119168577.ch22
"What went wrong"? The murder of Hrant Dink, the dead body of one of the most outstanding journalists in the street because of political reasons and the government's intention to "suppress" voices who dared to criticise it serve as the diagnostic frame in this case. Finding out who killed Hrant Dink and pursuing goals for a more democratic Turkey are the prognostic framings. And last but not least, when it comes to motivational framing, a bold and intelligent individual who served as a peaceful "mediator" between Turks and Armenians was put to death, and this may either pave the way for a more closed-off and dictatorial Turkey or pave the way for a more democratic nation. The crowds that marched through the capital city did so in pursuit of a better tomorrow.
Conclusion
Hrant Dink's death shattered the whole country. On one hand, thousands of people went out to protest for a better country and, on the other hand, the nationalists drowned out the opposite sentiment. As Meline Toumani mentions in her book, "There Was and There Was Not: A Journey Through Hate and Possibility in Turkey, Armenia, and Beyond", "one Hrant killed, here are too many Hrants. Die, filthy Armenian," was written in blue spray paint on the wall of an Armenian church in Istanbul the night of the murder.
The research question of this paper was why Hrant Dink's case was special and politically mobilizing in Turkey. There are many reasons, but first of all, his immense influence on Turkish society and bravery to speak up against authorities. Secondly, being Armenian and speaking about the denial of the Armenian Genocide is one of the reasons he was especially targeted. Civil society, being oppressed in Turkey for decades, couldn't close its eyes on this murder, because not talking about it or hiding it under the veil of usual murder in the streets of Istanbul would have disastrous consequences.
The Hrant Dink Foundation is now engaged in initiatives that focus on the plight of the Armenian minority. Combating prejudice and discrimination against minorities is the Foundation's main goal. The Foundation is a young organization with very little in the way of financial resources. The AGOS newspaper and the Foundation, however, may work together to a great extent to promote Hrant Dink's political legacy, especially now that Turkey is starting to re-evaluate its attitude toward minorities as well as Armenia. It is merely regrettable that Hrant Dink's death was necessary to make this happen.
Dink's death was sharply criticized by the international community, as well as the leaders of States. He started a spontaneous movement in Turkey, which became
the beginning of new movements aimed at the development of democracy and human rights. Despite the fact that the nationalists created a kind of counter-movement and tried to make people go home, scaring them with trials and article 301, the citizens annually gather and march through the city. This year also people gathered in front of the former office of the newspaper "Agos" of which he was the editor. The rally with the participation of thousands of people was held calmly and with dignity, hiding behind slogans that were chanted by an attentive crowd, loudly calling for justice for Hrant.
Raquel Dink delivered the main speech. She insisted on the need for truth and justice. Being a deeply religious person, Raquel also quoted several passages from the Bible, including the text of the letter to the Ephesians, chapter 5, verse 11: "Do not participate in the fruitless works of darkness, but rather condemn them". Hrant Dink told his Turkish interlocutors: "talk to me, tell me about your sufferings and what is in your heart, and I, I will open my heart and tell you about my sufferings".
Many Armenians who had been living in secrecy in Turkey began to come forward after Hrant's death in an attempt to support his efforts. A year later, in 2008, Armenia and Turkey made their first attempt to initiate communication on diplomatic ties and border openings. Although it was unsuccessful, Armenians and Turks are "two close nations and far neighbors", according to an article written by Hrant. His goal was to lessen the animosity towards and "otherness" of Armenians, which in some way began with his own passing and was manifested by those who carried the posters and identified themselves as the "Others".
REFERENCES
Journal Articles
1. Jasper James M. The art of moral protest: culture, biography and creativity in social move-ments,1957.
2. Von Bieberstein A. (2017). Surviving Hrant Dink: Carnal Mourning under the Specter of Senselessness. Social Analysis, 61(1).
3. Benford R.D., & Snow D.A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26 (1), 611-639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611.
4. Snow D.A., Vliegenthart R. & Ketelaars P. (2018). The Framing Perspective on Social Movements: Its Conceptual Roots and Architecture. In D. A. Snow, S.A. Soule, H. Kriesi, & H.J. McCammon (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (1st ed. PP. 392-410). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119168577.ch22.
5. David A. and Dana M. Moss. Protest on the Fly: Toward a Theory of Spontaneity in the Dynamics of Protest and Social Movements // American Sociological Review 79, no. 6 (December 2014): 1122-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414554081.
Online Magazine Articles
6. Dink H., Why was I Targeted, Agos, January 12th, 2007, https://hrantdink.org/en/hrant-dmk/hrant-dink-articles/728-why-was-i-targeted
7. Demirhisar D. (2016) Emotion and protest in Turkey: what happened on 19 January, 2007, Open Democracy / ISA RC-47: Open Movements, 11 December. https://opendemoc-racy.net/deniz-g-nce-demirhisar/emotion-and-protest-in-turkey-what-happened-on-19-jan-uary-2007/
8. Authored Book.
9. ToumaniM. (2015) There was and there was not: A journey through hate and possibility in Turkey, Armenia, and beyond.
10. Report by Individual Authors.
11. Lagendijk J. (2009) Hrant Dink: A victim of intolerance and the quest for justice
12. Report by a Group Author.
13. Amnesty International, Turkey: Article 301 is a threat to freedom of expression and must be repealed now!, Public Statement, 2005.
«МЫ ВСЕ АРМЯНЕ»: УБИЙСТВО ГРАНТА ДИНКА КАК ФАКТОР ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ МОБИЛИЗАЦИИ В ТУРЦИИ
А. Газахецян
Российско-Армянский (Славянский) университет Институт Права и Политики (ИПП)
АННОТАЦИЯ
В данной статье рассматривается политическая мобилизация и последствия для армянской общины, проживающей в Турции, убийства Гранта Динка. Подчеркивается актуальность статьи, которая заключается в усилиях определенных слоев турецкого общества и нацменьшинств добиваться справедливости в отношении убийства Динка, даже спустя 15 лет после данного инцидента. Также проливается свет на Фонд Гранта Динка, созданный в 2007 году для продолжения стремлений и борьбы Динка, с акцентом на продвижение равенства для детей и молодежи, укрепления культурных связей между Турцией, Арменией и Европой, и поощрения написания истории, свободной от национализма и расизма. Кроме того, в статье рассматривается концепция фрейминга в социальных движениях с использованием диагностического, прогностического и мотивационного фрейминга для анализа движения, вызванного убийством Динка. Ключевые слова: Грант Динк, Армения, Фонд Гранта Динка, мобилизация, движения.
