Turkey Analyst,
vol. 3 no. 1
18 January 2010

WHAT THE COLUMNISTS SAY

The question whether the AKP is about to introduce a sort of civilian authoritarianism has been the major topic of the Turkish debate during the first weeks of the New Year. The issue has sharply divided the commentators, and the ensuing enflamed discussion has been yet another expression of the highly charged, polarized political atmosphere in the country.  The critics of the AKP assert that the ruling party is undermining democracy, while the influential, liberal supporters of the government accuse those critics of gross exaggeration, indeed of subverting democracy themselves.

ÜLSEVER:  WHERE IS TURKEY HEADED?
Cüneyt Ülsever in Hürriyet writes that the age of military tutelage is over in Turkey. That is so because every sensible person has understood that military interventions in politics don’t offer any solutions. It is also an undeniable fact that the governing AKP has made a crucial contribution by breaking many of the taboos of the past, although the ruling party has sometimes been carried away in its policies by feelings of revenge. Yet, I disagree with those liberals who maintain that Turkey now faces normalization and democratization. Indeed, there is very little to support such a suggestion. I am pessimistic because the backbone of the AKP – the Islamic National outlook movement – has no democratic inclinations. It is telling that the AKP’s proposals for democratization have so far not ventured beyond satisfying conservative demands. Democratization has got stuck between the headscarf and the right of students of the Muslim preacher high schools to enter university. Never mind that no constitutional reform has been implemented, the AKP has only produced “openings” towards Kurds and Alevis that lack substance.

GÜRSEL:  AKP IS NOT DEMOCRATIC
The attempt of the AKP to defeat the regime of military tutelage is understandable, but that fact alone does not automatically make the governing party a democratic force, writes Kadri Gürsel in Milliyet. The struggle that rages currently is a struggle about power, not about introducing democracy; the AKP’s attachment to democracy is instrumental, and does not betray any fundamental adhesion to democratic principles. The liberals hold forth the Kurdish opening and the EU process as proof of the AKP’s allegedly democratic nature. Yet, those examples don’t hold water. The AKP suddenly embarked on the Kurdish opening only because the foreign conjuncture happened to offer an opportunity, and the opening was subsequently abandoned, with Kurdish politicians being hand-cuffed, amply demonstrating the AKP’s lack of democratic sincerity. And the governing party has never internalized the EU process. The initial reforms were pursued only with an eye on short-term political and economic benefits. Had the AKP vigorously implemented EU reforms after 2005, Turkey would have been a very different country indeed today.

ŞAHIN: POSTMODERN AUTHORITARIANISM
Haluk Şahin in Radikal questions the presupposition that military tutelage and coups constitute the only threats to Turkish democracy.  The liberals who support the AKP only see that threat and accuse those who dare to point to other, sinister developments as cheerleaders for military intervention. Yet, we should bear in mind that democracy and the freedom of the press can never be taken for granted, and that vigilance is always called for. The term “postmodern authoritarianism”, which has been coined by EU skeptics in Great Britain who warn about the faceless and growing power of the EU bureaucracy, may indeed be applicable in Turkey as well. What may look like diffusion of power could in fact amount to something altogether different, to the concentration of power.  In any case, does it not sound like Fukuyama declaring “the end of history” to content oneself with declaring that “the military has been crushed, therefore the future of democracy is shining”?

ERDOĞAN: IS AKP MOVING TOWARDS FASCISM?
Mustafa Erdoğan in Radikal agrees that the AKP is indeed attempting to change the old system, but he rejects the description “civilian coup” used by the critics of the ruling party. The system that the AKP tries to change was itself only half-democratic, and if we look at the policies of the government as a whole, it becomes abundantly clear that it is moving Turkey towards more, and not less democracy – although the government has committed certain “democratic errors” in this process. In fact, the real concern of those who accuse the AKP of staging a “civilian coup” is something else. What bothers them is rather that the military no longer fully enjoys its traditional, autonomous position and judicial impunity. Even though they accuse the AKP of introducing its own variety of “tutelage” over the political system, the critics are very well aware that the ruling party is indeed far from being able to exert full control over even the executive branch.

ÇONGAR:  WHY DON’T THE CRITICS OF THE AKP CARE ABOUT THE REAL THREATS TO DEMOCRACY?
Yasemin Çongar in Taraf questions the motives of those who participate in the agitation against the AKP, those who conjure up the specter of “civilian coup, civilian tutelage, civilian fascism and one party rule”.  If they really aspire for more and not less democracy than we have now, why don’t they express tangible democratic demands, instead of crying loud about an abstract threat of dictatorship? For instance, why don’t they raise their voice demanding the acceleration of the EU-harmonization reforms?  Why do they abstain from mounting a campaign calling all political parties to implement reforms that would breathe new life into the Kurdish opening, that would ensure that the military remains in its barracks and withdraws from politics and that would force the political parties to prepare a “civilian” constitution that protects the citizen, and not the state? Why are they so afraid of the only political party which, albeit insufficiently and timidly, nevertheless has set its mind on accomplishing at least something on those accounts?

MAHÇUPYAN: THE KURDS MUST ABANDON THE PATH OF VIOLENCE
Etyen Mahçupyan in Taraf writes that the Kurds share a fate similar to that of the Armenians. They have both been victimized by the Turkish state and they are entitled to justice. Yet, the question is whether being right legitimates political actions inspired by an authoritarian mentality; and would those who have been victimized be inherently incapable of developing policies that depart from authoritarian, nationalist traditions? The stance of the Armenian Diaspora is understandable with regard to those questions; the Armenians no longer harbor any desire to live together with the Turks. The Kurds, on the other hand, incessantly invoke that desire. Yet, that invocation lacks credibility. Kurdish politics has to clearly announce the intention of abandoning the path of violence. Only then will the rightful and legitimate demands of the Kurdish society be supported with rightful and legitimate policies, ultimately rendering the opposition of the state futile.

© Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center, 2010. This article may be reprinted provided that the following sentence be included: "This article was first published in the Turkey Analyst (www.turkeyanalyst.org), a biweekly publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center".

The Turkey Analyst
The Turkey Analyst is a publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Joint Center, designed to bring authoritative analysis and news on the rapidly developing domestic and foreign policy issues in Turkey. It is published weekly, and includes a topical analysis, as well as translations and summaries of selected Turkish news reports. It is edited and compiled under the supervision of Svante E. Cornell, Halil M. Karaveli, and M. K. Kaya.

The analyses appearing in the Turkey Analyst are often written by the three Editors. The Turkey Analyst occasionally publishes signed guest analyses.

The Joint Center
The Joint Center was created in 2005 through the merger of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, and the Silk Road Studies Program, at the Stockholm-based Institute for Security and Development Policy.

The Turkey Initiative
The Joint Center launched a Turkey Initiative in 2006 in order to improve understand of Turkish domestic and foreign affairs in Europe and the United States.

To Subscribe:
To subscribe to the Turkey Analyst email announcements, please contact Martina Klimesova with an email containing "subscribe Turkey Analyst" in the subject line.