Is the world bigger than five world powers?

Speaking at his visit in India, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan once again said, "The world is bigger than five." He continued to say, "The structure of the U.N., especially the Security Council, should be reformed as soon as possible. For example, who can argue that the Security Council is a proper structure if India, a country with a population of 1.311 billion people, isn't a member? How fair can a Security Council, that does not represent a Muslim population of 1 billion 700 million people, be? Do the temporary members have any value in the United Nations Security Council? No... We need an alternate United Nations Security Council. Every member should become a permanent member."

Erdoğan constantly makes these statements and calls out the U.N. during all of his overseas visits. He is not wrong in doing so either. Let's acknowledge that there is a one-sided relationship between the East and the West in the current world system. The Westerner decides, and this decision is valid in the north, south, east and west. There is controversy in the current world system, actually the East is considered secondary by the West. This state of being secondary and of lower status prevents the East from being able to express itself.

Thus, when the statement, "The world is bigger than five," is used in India, and this statement is somehow a voice of India's history, the meaning becomes deeper as India was a giant society colonized by the British for close to 250 years (from the 1600s to the mid-1900s) together with other Asian countries, under the excuse of business. Yes, of course there is no clear and explicit colonization order today. But it is evident that a clear and explicit colonization system is not continuing in the world today. However, in contrast to the West, the East still remains secondary and lacks the confidence to voice itself.

Just like other Eastern countries that were once colonized by the West, India has not taken a path different to that of the West in becoming an independent state, determining its own fate, expressing its own culture and character during its journey to become a nation-state. This can be described with a cut-and-paste metaphor. Thus, while Western societies easily adapted to moving from being empires to new states to being culturally equipped – as they were enlightened and had the industrial revolution – this was not the case for Eastern societies.

Eastern societies that have been freed from colonization, measured the backwardness of their societies with the global standards identified by Europe. There nationalism became the same as those who were enlightened. Yet, what failed to be understood was that these standards came from a foreign culture and the harmonization lever to bring the culture carried by the society as a legacy from their forefathers up to progressive Western culture standards did not exist in the one imitating.

Thus, not having a lever, caused the society to seek unnatural transformation techniques, meaning, this led to culturally equipping the society again. At this point it would be a necessary to mention that Turkey is the only country that has gone through the same periods the colonized countries did while trying to found a nation-state yet never being colonized. Therefore, Turkey is in deep contradictions just like India. Thus, just like India, it is in a love-hate relationship with the West and can despise the West while imitating it at the same time. Turkey is an imitator as it adopts foreign standards while trying to set is own nationalism, yet at the same time it objects this, because in other words, nationalism is situating oneself against the other. In countries which steps are taken to create new nations, the steps are divided into two: Factors that shape culture and factors that have a culture that needs to be reshaped. Thus, new artificial classes are added on to the non-artificial classes – like it is in India and Turkey.

Meaning, the nationalism that surfaces in Eastern countries, especially those that are trying to free themselves from colonialism, turns into an irrational, narrow, hate-filled and destructive nature. This is the reason why 1 million people are people dying in Rwanda because of head measurements, why India was oppressed for hundreds of years until it kicked the British out, why India is still in conflict with the Muslims of Cashmere, and why Turkey is in a struggle against the culture-shapers and those whose culture needs to be shaped.

Although they are all countries that look out for their own interests, and while the leaders of European countries are not shy of bowing in front of the pope, the reality is that in the East, there is no solidarity between the Hindus and Muslims, they cannot live in harmony despite their differences in race and religion, and if they do share the same race and religion, they are hostile toward one another because of their sectarian differences.

Erdoğan is against Western hegemony, regardless of religion, language or race. He calls out to the East to stand up together and raise a voice for themselves, but I am not too sure how much of a response this call will draw from those who are quite crowded but choose to keep their nose clean.