Democracy, Identity and Foreign Policy in Turkey

Hegemony Through Transformation

F. Keyman, S. Gumüsçu, Sebnem Gumuscu

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9780230354272
• eBook ISBN: 9781137277121
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Asian Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Through critical analysis of Turkey's transformation under the AKP, this book explores the relationship between domestic transformations and global/regional dynamics. It also discusses the relationship between the Turkish transformation and the Arab uprisings and the implications of the Turkish case for regime transitions in the Arab world.

1

Introduction

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in Turkey, especially in terms of its modern history, which has demonstrated that a democracy is possible in a social setting where the population is dominantly Muslim. Turkey’s “geopolitical pivot” and regional power role in world politics have become even more important. Accordingly, Turkey has been expected to initiate a proactive, multidimensional, and constructive foreign policy in many areas to help promote regional and global peace and stability. It has become one of the more dynamic economies and emerging markets, as well as a new “energy hub” in the region. Moreover, the global interest has stemmed not only from the geopolitical identity of Turkey, as a strong state with the capacity to function as a “geopolitical security hinge” at the intersection of the Middle East, the Balkans, and the Caucasian regions, but also from its cultural identity, its secular modernity, and its movement toward democratization. Furthermore, with all of these capacities, Turkey has also been perceived as a reference point for the analysis of change and transformation occurring in its region. To talk about Turkey is to talk about regional and global affairs.

In this book we offer a critical reading of the modern history of Turkey with a special focus on the last decade, where the concepts of transformation and hegemony have constituted the main focus of the academic and public debate. As such, it analyzes critically the recent transformation of Turkey under AKP rule. Yet in doing so it pays attention to both continuities and changes that have been occurring in Turkey since 1923. The following questions delineate the general framework of our analysis. What are the main processes of transformation in Turkey since 1923? What are the social, political, and global underpinnings of AKP’s hegemony in Turkish politics? How do major processes of transformation – modernization, democratization, globalization, Europeanization – play into the rise of the AKP? What are the implications of AKP’s hegemony for four major processes of transformation and corresponding social cleavages? What do this hegemony and its transformative impact imply for democratic consolidation in Turkey? As we discuss these issues we will also look closer at identity politics organized around the Kurdish question and Islamic resurgence, and their impact on democratic consolidation. In addition we will also analyze the ways in which Turkish transformation is affected by the Arab uprisings as well as how Turkey may inspire these countries. How does Turkey affect the countries experiencing uprisings, and how is it affected by these monumental events in the region? How do these developments in conjunction with AKP’s political hegemony shape issues of identity, citizenship, secularism, and civil society in Turkey? These questions are more relevant than ever as Turkish politics has been recently reduced to a power struggle between the AKP government and the Gulen movement. Corruption allegations against Erdogan and accusations of erecting a parallel structure in the police and the judiciary against the Gulen movement have negatively impacted democracy and the rule of law, while over-polarizing the society through increasing use of friend-foe rhetoric.

In seeking answers to these questions, we will employ the concept of transformation, which will be elaborated in the following chapter. This concept permits both an understanding of the complex history of modern Turkey, and of the recent AKP experience since 2002. We suggest that in its modern history Turkey has been undergoing transformation that involves the processes of modernization, democratization, globalization, and Europeanization. These processes starting at different periods since 1923 are closely intertwined, and they render Turkish modernity and its transformation increasingly complex and multidimensional at the same time. Each process involves extensive social, political, and economic change while leading to new cleavages in society. The main assertion of the book is that the AKP has carried out substantial transformation accompanying these four processes since 2002. We also argue that transformation has given rise to the hegemonic position of the AKP not only in politics but also in all spheres of Turkish modernity, yet whether such transformation has yielded democratic consolidation in Turkey remains to be seen. At a more theoretical level, the Turkish case is illustrative of the very complex and complicated relationships among transformation, hegemony, and democracy. These complex relationships constitute one of the most important topics that need to be, and has already been, discussed in our globalizing world.

When situated within the broader transformation of Turkey, the AKP experience is part and parcel of the processes of modernization, democratization, globalization, and Europeanization. The rise of the AKP as a dominant party is closely related to Turkey’s multidimensional transformation, insofar as transformation (1) defines the parameters of governance, distributes and redistributes power among different segments and actors, and (2) determines who wins the struggle for power among actors forced to adapt to the changing circumstances. Since the 1980s, for instance, it has become increasingly evident that it is not possible to govern Turkey without responding to the ongoing processes of globalization and Europeanization that separately and in conjunction determine the cognitive and institutional framework of governance while providing new opportunities and challenges to different social and political groups. As a result, these processes not only explain the emergence of the AKP, but also explain how the AKP attained electoral hegemony and constructed its dominance in contemporary Turkish politics, for the party proved to be highly skilled in mobilizing these processes and exploiting the opportunities provided in its favor. This electoral hegemony and ensuing dominance in return allowed the AKP to carry out an extensive transformation in Turkey in the last decade. In other words, transformation and electoral hegemony have mutually reinforced each other, creating a virtuous cycle of dominance for the party. Turkey’s transformation under the AKP, on the other hand, displayed important changes as well as continuities within Turkey’s broader trajectory. However, this transformation has been more successful and consistent in some areas than in others. Accordingly, while the AKP performed rather well in globalizing the Turkish economy, increasing Turkey’s activism in global politics and modernizing the state bureaucracy and its institutions, it has so far shown an ambiguous record characterized by large swings in democratization and Europeanization.

Turkey’s complex transformation has not only formed the basis of the AKP’s dominance, but also been a challenge for the opposition, which has had to adapt to the ongoing processes of change and develop appropriate responses. The responses of the old actors in the opposition, however, have been reactionary rather than constructive and contributory. As a result, not only has their electoral support stagnated but they have also become increasingly marginalized in the process of transformation. The weakness of the opposition in turn has further contributed to the dominance of the AKP. In other words, transformation has turned into a vicious cycle for the opposition parties, in particular for the Republican People’s Party (CHP). The CHP, as the founder of the republic and its state-centered modernization project, has faced significant challenges in the processes of globalization, Europeanization, and democratization. As Turkey became exposed to globalization and Europeanization and as this transformation has taken on a new momentum with the AKP hegemony, the CHP was confronted with the necessity to adjust to the multiple processes of change. So far it has failed to transform and reinvent itself in accordance with the new dynamics of Turkish and international politics. Over the course of two decades, new social and political actors have entered the political scene, new domestic and foreign policies have emerged, new institutional designs have been discussed and yet the CHP has mostly remained marginal to these critical processes. In fact, the party has increasingly become a bifurcated party, parts of which are in constant conflict with each other. This internal struggle over the future direction of the party has kept the main opposition weak and thus contributed to the problems of democratic consolidation.

Turkey’s transformation under a dominant party, the AKP, in combination with a weak opposition does not, however, bode well for democratic consolidation. In this book we will show that transformation under the AKP generates a new center and empowers new actors through economic, social, and political transformation, while undermining the power of the secular elite, that is, the military and judiciary, through civilianization of politics. We will also contend that despite these critical shifts that empower certain segments of the society vis-à-vis the strong state, these changes have yet to deliver democratic consolidation due to the AKP’s hegemony and its increasingly majoritarian understanding of democracy. In fact the AKP’s swings between democratic reform and authoritarian retreat have fed a cycle of democratic erosion particularly in freedoms of expression, association, and information.

Considering the impediments before democratic consolidation under the AKP hegemony, the EU anchor for Turkey and a strong political opposition have become more critical than ever. However, the Europeanization process has stagnated since 2007, weakening the EU anchor in Turkish politics. This stagnation is unfortunate insofar as the EU process, particularly the Copenhagen political criteria, proved to be functional before 2007 for Turkey’s critical steps toward democratic consolidation, civilianization, and multiculturalism, as well as for the reinforcement of citizenship rights and expansion of civil society. In fact, the stalemate in Turkish-EU relations on the one hand and the democratic deficit problems in Turkey in the areas of rights and freedoms on the other have gone hand in hand. Keeping EU’s centrality for democratic consolidation and the reform process in Turkey in mind, we will refer to the Europeanization process in passim as we discuss the AKP experience as part and parcel of Turkey’s transformation. We will not discuss Turkey-EU relations in greater detail in this book not because we deem them as insignificant, quite the contrary, but because these relations are characterized by a stalemate in recent years.¹

Such an in-depth analysis of Turkey through multiple transformations is not only important to understand the dynamics of Turkish domestic and international politics, but it also has great relevance for countries in the Arab world that currently experience simultaneous transformations and emergence of new social cleavages following the monumental uprisings in 2011. Particularly significant is Turkey’s role, as a predominantly Muslim society with a pro-Islamic government in power in a secular state, in its immediate vicinity and the broader Middle East, where recent uprisings brought to the fore the question of compatibility of Islam, hegemony, and democracy.

The debate on compatibility of Islam and democracy has been revitalized with the onset of the Arab uprisings which unintentionally opened the Islamists’ way to power. Islamic movements and parties had formed the strongest opposition to former regimes, and not surprisingly, these parties emerged victorious from the first elections of the transitions in cases like Tunisia and Egypt. As a result, the question of the compatibility of Islam and democracy once again has come to dominate the discussions in the West, and the monumental transitions in the Middle East and North Africa have been reduced to a false dichotomy of secularism versus Islamism.

The AKP experience in Turkey along with developments in the aftermath of the Arab uprisings clearly indicates that the question of monopolization of power (or power fusion) is more pertinent to democratization than the question of incumbents’ identity. What we mean by power fusion is the presence of a strong executive that rules with a majoritarian impulse and relies extensively on an electoral understanding of democracy, rather than a pluralist and participatory understanding, with serious repercussions for minority and women’s rights. In such cases of power fusion, separation of powers erodes, the judiciary and the state bureaucracy lose their independence, the parliament remains largely an ineffective institution, and deliberation with civil society actors gets limited to those with agendas similar to that of the government. Our assertion is that discussion on transitions in the Middle East and North Africa should move away from the “Clash of Civilizations” logic and instead entertain the impact of electoral hegemony and incumbents’ monopolization of power on democratization. Otherwise, we will not only fail to understand the causes and the nature of protests in Turkey and Egypt in summer 2013, but also to assess the prospects of democratization in the region. The Turkish case is particularly illustrative in revealing the futility of the debate on secularism and Islamism and how it draws attention away from perils of power fusion. By discussing the details of the Turkish experience, we hope to bring forth lessons from the Turkish case seldom highlighted by analysts due to their fixation with Islamism.

As we see it, two points are in order with respect to the relationship among secularism, Islamism, and democracy. First, the threat of Islamism for democracy, at least electoral democracy, is more imagined than real. In contrast to analysts who describe the increasing power of Islamists as the coming of Islamist authoritarianism due to the undemocratic essence of Islam, Olivier Roy rightfully claims that the debate on compatibility of Islam and democracy is now obsolete for two main reasons. First, democracy and Islamism are now inevitably intertwined.² The popularity and mobilizational capacity of Islamic parties make them central actors of probable democracies in the region. At the same time, it is this popularity and unmatched mobilizational capacity that in fact make it possible for Islamists to accept to function in a democratic, multiparty system.

Moreover, the performance of the Islamic parties since 2011 in the region and the AKP experience in Turkey since 2002 have confirmed Roy’s earlier assertion that political Islam has failed to offer a distinct and coherent ideological program alternative to capitalism and democracy.³ Absence of a clear political blueprint for an Islamic state and institutional underdevelopment of the political projects and imaginations of the Islamic actors have been apparent in the aftermath of the Arab uprisings, substantiating this failure. As Dalacoura asserts, the fact that the Islamic parties in Tunisia and Egypt express their proximity to the AKP in Turkey, which has abandoned Islamism as a political project more than a decade ago, supports this conclusion.⁴

Indeed, the Turkish experience in the last decade under the AKP confirms that political Islam has failed to offer a distinct ideological program. The ruling party in Turkey has functioned within the secular democratic framework of the former regime by redefining itself as a service-oriented, socially conservative party with neoliberal economic agenda. As Ahmet Kuru puts it, the AKP pursues Muslim politics without establishing an Islamic state, which involves Muslim individuals and groups promoting Islamic ethics and principles through democratic institutions. In the realm of religion-state relations, the AKP replaced the assertive secularism of the Kemalist regime that imposed religious privatization on its citizens with “passive secularism,” which is said to be neutral toward citizens’ diverse religious identities in the public sphere despite its problems, as we discuss in detail in Chapter 8.⁵

Second, associating secularism with democracy is equally problematic due to the fact that secularism and authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive. The experience in Turkey and Tunisia shows the ways in which secularism may form the basis of discriminatory policies and repressive regimes. Furthermore, despite the AKP’s success in curbing the authoritarian nature of secularism in Turkey through a gradual shift to passive secularism, Turkey still has a long way to go before consolidating its democracy. As the Turkish experience shows, a post-Islamist party in power operating in a secular framework is not a guarantee for democratization. It is therefore essential to move beyond this debate on identity and focus on power dynamics instead.

In that respect, the Turkish experience is highly relevant to the ongoing transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. Despite the fact that the military has taken over power in July 2013 and ousted President Morsi while brutally repressing the Muslim Brotherhood, in the medium term the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Al-Nahda in Tunisia are likely to remain the strongest political actors with a capacity to establish electoral hegemony. These parties enjoy significant and unmatched mobilizational capacity across their respective countries, and the opposition in both cases is highly fragmented, operating mostly in large cities without an organizational infrastructure in the peripheral areas. Given this gap between the Islamic parties and their opponents, albeit important differences, the Turkish experience in the last decade under the AKP with a clear electoral hegemony becomes highly relevant for Egypt and Tunisia. This political landscape necessitates a thorough study of the implications of hegemony for democratization as well as the role of institutions in such cases. Turkey is an important case of regional and international significance through which we can unpack the relationship between electoral hegemony and democratization, as we intend to do in this book.

The AKP’s hegemony in Turkish politics and its negative repercussions for democratic consolidation indeed manifest the primacy of power dynamics as well as the role of checks and balances over incumbents’ identity for democratization. As we will discuss in greater detail in Chapter 3, over the course of its incumbency the AKP has monopolized power through its electoral hegemony and ensuing transformative capacity. The conviction embedded in the party that effective governance is possible only through a strong executive has pushed the AKP toward greater power fusion particularly after 2007. The immediate effect of this power fusion has been clearly observed in the sidelining of the parliament and in Erdogan’s growing insistence on super-presidentialism that would institutionalize monopolization of power the government has launched since 2007.

The fact that Turkey itself follows a path toward power fusion in domestic politics and remains distant to normative frameworks in its foreign assistance may have an unexpected demonstration effect in the region: that power fusion facilitates better governance. However, those who are willing to take this lesson should be wary of its consequences, for power fusion in Turkey has created a highly polarized society prone to crises while contributing to democratic deficits, which served as triggers for recent protests in June 2013. The electoral hegemony of the government combined with its emphasis on consequentialism over proceduralism⁶ has created substantial political and social polarization while alienating several social groups in the society. The unilateralism of the go...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1  Introduction
• 2  Turkeys Transformation
• 3  Constructing Hegemony: The AKP Rule
• 4  AKPs Hegemony and Democratic Consolidation
• 5  Turkeys Proactive Foreign Policy under the AKP
• 6  Turkish Foreign Policy in the Aftermath of the Arab Uprisings
• 7  The AKP, Arab Uprisings, and the Kurdish Question
• 8  Democracy, Secularism, and Identity
• 9  Civil Society and Democratic Consolidation
• 10  Conclusion: Turkey at the Crossroads Democratization through the Strong EU Anchor
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index