HRANT DINK (1954-2007)

Roger Smith (College of William and Mary)

“We are all Hrant. We are all Armenians.” This is the cry that went up from thousands of persons who marched in Istanbul after the assassination of the fifty-two year old pro-democracy journalist Hrant Dink on January 19, 2007 by a seventeen year old Turkish nationalist. But there were other responses as well: the white wool cap the gunman was wearing became a popular item among many young people; the police who were shown with the killer as he was arraigned were all smiles; and vague threats were made that Dink would not be the last.

For family and friends, the death of a man is personal, but in some instances it also has broad implications for a society as a whole. Such is the case with Hrant Dink, a Turkish citizen of Armenian descent, as he always put it, who used his skills as a journalist and editor to move Turkey toward an open and democratic society based on a civic rather than a blood tie. In his newspaper AGOS he constantly raised questions that many were reluctant to hear: what does it mean to be a citizen? How can minorities be fully incorporated into political society yet retain their own distinctive qualities? What is the best way (perhaps the only way) to bring about a democratic Turkey?

His answers did not please Turkish nationalists, who were resistant to change, were reluctant about the European Union, and who could not distinguish between constructive criticism and treason. Dink helped organize a conference in Istanbul in 2005 that brought together scholars born in Turkey to discuss their perspectives on what occurred in Turkey 1915. The Justice Minister (who is now in charge of the investigation into Dink’s assassination), called those who took part “traitors” who “stabbed the nation in its back.” Moreover, nationalists charged Dink four times with violating Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, a vague law now used some sixty times against intellectuals, including Orhan Pamuk, to silence and intimidate them. The crime: “insulting Turkishness.” Some commentators argue that it was this law and, the constant allegations against Dink, that gave impetus to his murder. But one would have to ask the deeper question as well: why does Turkey even have such a law. Is its identity so fragile that it must suppress freedom of thought? If so, how does one create a more democratic Turkey?

Hrant Dink also did not please many Armenians, especially those in the diaspora. He used the word “genocide” but did not dwell upon it; urged Armenians to move away from resentment against Turks and concentrate on the present and future; and was opposed to the French legislation that would outlaw denial of the Armenian genocide. His approach was to foster a civil society over time that could strengthen democracy and protection of minorities in Turkey. Above all, he saw Turkey’s access to the European Community as crucial to promoting and protecting all citizens of Turkey.

Hrant Dink was a man of vision who pointed toward a better world, but, as with the prophets of old, was fated not to enter it.