Turkey Analyst,
vol. 4 no. 12
13 June 2011

WHAT THE COLUMNISTS SAY

Several commentators in the Turkish press have expressed concern over the way Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has conducted himself during the election campaign. Erdoğan has been severely criticized for his chauvinist discourse; his attempt to lure away voters from the far-right Turkish nationalist MHP by stating that he would have hanged Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdish PKK, if he had been in power when the death sentence against him was pronounced back in 1999 was found chocking by pro-AKP commentators as well. In general, the thread that runs through many of the commentaries is an apprehension that the defeat of the old system of military tutelage may not translate a victory for democracy, as many of the old habits persist.

CEMAL: TO HANG ÖCALAN
Hasan Cemal in Milliyet notes that Prime Minister Erdoğan has said that if he had been in government when Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, was sentenced to death, he would have resisted the calls to spare his life. Erdoğan says, “I would have hung him!” How will Tayyip Erdoğan, who defends the death penalty in order to get more votes, ever be able to take the necessary steps tomorrow to solve the Kurdish problem that represents the single most important obstacle to peace and democracy? I would say this to Erdoğan: there is no place in democracies, in systems based on freedom and human rights for those who conduct politics with a greasy hanging cord in their hand.

TAYİZ: WINNING THE ELECTION AND LOSING THE PEACE?
Kurtuluş Tayiz in Taraf expresses deep disappointment with how Prime Minister Erdoğan, in particular, has conducted himself during the election campaign. I am concerned that the Erdoğan’s nationalist discourse about the Kurdish issue in particular, and his angry rhetoric in general, may cost this country its peace. I cannot understand that the Prime Minister endangers the peace just in order to secure more votes. With his nationalist rhetoric about the Kurdish issue, Erdoğan has demonstrated that he is no different from his predecessors. There may be those who excuse Erdoğan’s rhetoric as mere tactic; that may indeed be the case. Politicians are necessarily pragmatic. But still, I do not believe it. I think that his nationalist rhetoric, this chauvinism, this aggressive posture, translates the soul and heart of the Prime Minister. Yet he is not alone; the rhetoric of the Kurdish politicians has been no less nationalist and chauvinist. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of the CHP, was the only leader who employed a moderate and constructive discourse that promoted societal peace. Prime Minister Erdoğan and his party may emerge victorious from this election. The BDP may also be rewarded with electoral success. But I am afraid that this “success” will cost Turkey dearly. I do hope that we will not have to sacrifice internal peace because of these “successes”.

İNSEL: NO DEMOCRATIC PROMISE AFTER VICTORY FOR ANTI-TUTELAGE STANCE
Ahmet İnsel observes in Radikal how much has changed in Turkey since the last general election in 2007. Now, we are living in a Turkey where during the week before the election, Kenan Evren has been questioned by the prosecutor about the military coup that he led 31 years ago, and where several additional generals, among whom a four star general, were arrested, charged with having prepared a coup. Yet we can nevertheless not conclude right away that democracy is becoming stronger and more entrenched in Turkey. Today and here we are unable to reply in the affirmative to the question “Will the AKP pursue democratization beyond standing up to the old regime of tutelage?” In keeping with the conservative political tradition in Turkey, the AKP basically envisages democratization as amounting to the consolidation of a strong executive authority legitimated by popular sovereignty. The fact that the AKP has been much more successful than other center-right parties in rolling back the regime of tutelage is explained by existential reflexes; and faced with the threats against its existence, the AKP’s struggle for survival came to be identified with a stand for democracy. But as his aggressive style during the election campaign has demonstrated, Erdoğan has little more than incantations of co-religiosity and infrastructure projects to offer in the way of a political project beyond the victory over the regime of tutelage.

ALTAN: THE PEOPLE IS STILL NOT TRUSTED 
Ahmet Altan writes in Taraf that it is much easier to tear down an old, rotten political system than it is to put something new in its place. Now the regime of military tutelage is in retreat, but we do not quite know what is going to replace it. The popular anger that came in so handy when we were engaged in confronting the old system is of little use now; on the contrary, different groups in society now tend to direct that anger toward each other. You can tear down the past with anger, but you cannot build the future with it. The Kurdish issue, for instance, awaits a solution, consumed by anger; how are we going to solve that issue? During the election campaign, none of the political parties bothered to inform us about their plans for the future. We are told that a new constitution is going to be introduced, but we are left in the dark about the principles that are going to inform this constitution. Perhaps the politicians do have a solution in mind, but they do not share it with the “people”; the principal disease of the past, the habit of looking down on the people, is perpetuated; the attitude of the politicians is still “give me your vote, and I’ll take care of the rest”. The worst defect of the past was that the people were left out of every problem and solution; now the people has overthrown that regime, yet those who are candidates for building the new system nonetheless stick to old habits, and don’t engage in any conversation with the people.

KAHRAMAN: THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN HAS DEMONSTRATED HOW FAR TURKEY’S DEMOCRATIZATION HAS PROGRESSED SINCE 2007
Hasan Bülent Kahraman in Sabah writes that the election campaign above all has served to demonstrate the degree to which democratization has progressed. The mere recollection of the atmosphere that prevailed during the run-up to the election in 2007 is enough to tell the difference. You simply cannot compare the circumstances that the resistance to democracy gave rise to and a political world where internal problems that relate to the functioning of democracy itself set the stage. Turkey’s main problem is the Kurdish issue. It has become apparent that we have reached the end of a road; it is no longer possible to pretend that the issue, including the PKK, does not exist. The Kurdish side has made its demands clearly known during the campaign; it has shown its cards. The Turkish side, however, has so far not responded in kind. After the election, we can expect that those who wield political power will respond to the Kurdish propositions. It is absolutely crucial that the BDP is represented in the parliament. In the coming period, the BDP, not the CHP, is going to be the governing party’s interlocutor. The ruling party will take steps toward democratization with an eye toward the Kurdish political movement.

© 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 bi-weekly, and includes topical analysis, as well asa summary of the Turkish media debate. It is edited and compiled under the supervision of Svante E. Cornell and Halil M. Karaveli.

The Turkey Analyst welcomes article submission. Please contact Halil M. Karaveli, Managing Editor.

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 understanding 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.