European Union Civil Society Policy and Turkey

A Bridge Too Far?

O. Zihnioglu

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781137274410
• eBook ISBN: 9781137274427
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Political Philosophy
• Index: Social Sciences

Drawing on interviews with Civil Society organizations and in conjunction with an examination of EU Civil Society Policy and the legal and institutional environment in Turkey this book examines EU policies on Turkish Civil Society organizations and highlights the significant constraints and limited impacts of these policies.

1

Introduction: Civil Society and the EU Approach

The European Union (EU) has long recognized the importance of civil society and has increasingly been interacting with key civil society actors in EU member states by means of their active participation in EU institutions. Recently, however, the EU has begun to acknowledge civil society as a main element of its enlargement strategy and, accordingly, has been developing what I call a ‘civil society policy’.

The EU has been displaying a vivid example of this policy during Turkey’s accession. EU civil society policy in the Turkish case endeavours to trigger reforms to introduce a more enabling legal and institutional structure for civil society actors, while at the same time providing financial and technical instruments for their establishment and activities (Council of the European Communities, 2006a). The Progress Reports, as well as the related legal framework (Council of the European Communities, 2006a Title I, Article 2, Commission of the European Communities, 2007, Sections 3.2 and 3.5, Commission of the European Communities, 2005a, 2.2.3.1), indicate clearly that the major aim of these reforms and instruments is to ensure, first and foremost, the development of an active civil society in Turkey. In addition to this, though, the EU aims to empower different actors of civil society to assume an increased role in matters relating to Turkey’s accession, so that they assist their countries’ social and economic transformation during this process (Commission of the European Communities, 2005a, Section 2.2.3.2, Commission of the European Communities, 2004c, Section 6) and/or prepare the citizens for the upcoming enlargement (Commission of the European Communities, 2005a, Section 1.2).

The issue of Turkish civil society in the EU accession process is not a new phenomenon. The increasing emphasis, since the early 2000s, by EU officials on the role and importance of civil society for the enlargement, along with a growing visibility of civil society organizations during the accession process, has entailed an on-going academic interest in this area. The previous studies elaborate, with different case studies, the empowerment as well as the role and the behaviour of individual civil society organizations during the post-1999 period (Alemdar, 2008, Soysal, 2010) and how, in return, they contribute to Turkey’s liberal-democratic transformation during the accession process (Göksel and Güneş, 2005, Arabacı, 2008, Toros, 2007). Likewise, much has been said about the restructuring of the legal and institutional framework organizing civil society in Turkey (Nergiz, 2006), the EU funding (Ergun, 2010) as well as EU’s symbolic power, empowering the civil society organizations (Rumelili, 2005, Göksel and Güneş, 2005). However, although there is an apparent focus on the accession process, it is not straightforward in these studies how the EU’s specific policies impact upon civil society organizations in Turkey, in particular over their involvement in this process. Even those studies (İçduygu, 2011, Kubicek, 2011) that question the flourishing of Turkish civil society during this period and their contribution to this process do not present a critical analysis of the EU’s civil society policy.

The accession process may have contributed to the rapid increase in the number of civil society organizations working on different areas (see Appendix A.4). Indeed, the number of active associations in Turkey has increased approximately by 64 per cent since the official announcement of Turkey’s candidacy to the EU in 1999 and reached over 94,000 by early 2013.

In addition to this, the accession process may have also rendered these organizations more visible. In particular during the initial years following the announcement of Turkey’s accession to the EU, actors of civil society were among those actively voicing their concerns and demands. There have been several groups that have mobilized their members and focused their attention on EU-related issues. A well-known example of this is the European Movement 2002, which rallied support for the adoption of political reforms and Turkey’s accession into the EU in 2002. The Movement gained further visibility with its publicity campaign in support of political reforms in the country based on the slogan ‘Başka Yarın Yok’ [There is no other tomorrow]. Several working groups under the European Movement have produced a common text supporting Turkey’s accession into the EU, which was published and opened to the public for signature. Emre Kocaoğlu, a former member of the Turkish parliament, during a conference on Turkey–EU relations, emphasized that the European Movement was an important source of pressure on members of the previous parliament (Kirişçi & Çapan, 2004, pp. 182–183) as well as similar efforts of different groups have without a doubt contributed to the increasing visibility of civil society organizations in Turkey. During interviews with civil society organizations, too, this increased visibility emerged as one of the most emphasized impact that especially small-scale civil society organizations have experienced over the course of the EU accession process.

Indeed, the accession process may have even empowered some of these organizations in certain areas. Yet, how much of this is the result of the EU’s endeavours, in other words whether and how successful the EU has been with respect to its goals set out in its civil society policy, is not clear. The interviews carried out with civil society organizations in Turkey reveal that EU civil society policy has failed to achieve its aforementioned objectives in Turkey. This book explores the reasons behind this failure.

EU civil society policy has its roots in the European integration process and accordingly, this policy was initially aimed at civil society actors within the EU’s borders to secure their active involvement in EU institutions and in policy-making. This being acknowledged, however, this book is set in the general context of the EU’s enlargement, with a focus on Turkey’s accession process.

In some Central and Eastern European countries, civil society actors had a promising start and were actively involved in the revolutions leading to 1989 (Schimmelfennig, Engert and Knobel, 2003, p. 498). Given the opportunities for establishing a flourishing civil society, which is considered a key element of consolidated democracy, one would expect the EU to expand on its civil society policy in these countries as part of its enlargement strategy. However, this is not what happened during the EU’s eastern enlargement. The EU wanted to complete the accession process in the shortest time possible and hence speed up the reform process for establishing a democratic political system and liberal economy, as well as for legislative harmonization, all of which were identified in the Presidency Conclusions of Copenhagen European Council in 1993 as entry requirements for all candidate countries. For the sake of being more efficient, the EU preferred to interact with people who can ‘get things done’ and this required it to waive involvement with civil society in this process. Added to this are the already weak societies of Central and Eastern European countries vis-à-vis the state, in particular at the outset of the regime change. This, too, hindered the development of civil society in these countries.

In the aftermath of eastern enlargement, however, EU policy-makers understood that successfully establishing democracy is not possible with the transformation of legal codes only, but also requires the understanding and support of the society. In this respect, the EU’s expressed desire for civil society organizations to play an important role during the accession became stronger and the EU started further developing its ‘civil society policy’ for future enlargements. Furthermore, an important lesson drawn from the eastern enlargement was the insufficient level of information and preparedness of citizens on both sides about one another, as well as about the opportunities and challenges of the enlargement process, which resulted in persistant misconceptions at the time of the accession. In order to avoid similar problems in future enlargements, the EU decided to establish a strong and sustained dialogue between the respective societies, as well as with the EU institutions, as part of its enlargement strategy. Through this dialogue the EU aimed to provide better mutual knowledge and understanding so as to ensure a stronger awareness of this process. The EU is convinced that such dialogue would be enhanced with the active involvement of civil society actors in this process (Commission of the European Communities, 2005a). Therefore, the EU began to expand its civil society policy on the candidate countries.

Although ‘civil society’ has never been one of the official policy areas of the EU, an EU ‘civil society policy’ can be clearly discerned. There are several good reasons for adopting this concept. First, the EU’s efforts that aim at civil societal actors are guided by explicitly declared objectives and principles with a long-term purpose. Second, there is already a striking empirical pattern suggesting the existence of consolidated policy effects in this area. Third, and most tellingly for my purposes, there is an emerging legal framework shaping the activities of the EU and aimed at civil society actors. A Council regulation (2002) frames the financial regulation of the general budget of the European Communities. The European Commission regulation (2002a), which implements the rules stipulated by this Council regulation, lays down the legal basis for provisions of financial support for civil society organizations in general. In fact, the European Commission’s policy for civil society in candidate and potential candidate countries was formulated in the 2007 Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2007–2008, following an emphasis on the role and importance of civil society for future enlargements in the European Commission’s Communication on Civil Society Dialogue (2005a) and the related provisions (par. 13) in the Council regulation (2006a) on establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA). In the case of Turkey, the European Commission also published a Communication on the IPA Revised Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2012–2013 as well as The Guiding Principles for EC Support of the Development of Civil Society in Turkey 2011–2015 in 2011. In relation to this legal framework, the EU has since developed various political, financial and administrative mechanisms to reach the explicit goals set.

The case of Turkey

This book focuses on the implementation of EU civil society policy in the Turkish context, as Turkey offers a vivid and instructive example of this policy. Following the aforementioned troubles the EU faced in the eastern enlargement, the EU’s interest in civil society actors in the candidate countries intensified. Subsequently, the EU introduced new financial and technical incentive mechanisms aiming at civil societal elements in the current and potential candidate countries, which included Turkey and some of the Balkan countries. In June 2005, the European Commission announced the Civil Society Dialogue to draw the terms of financial assistance and to frame the dialogue between the EU, member states and civil society organizations relating to future enlargements. The purpose of these incentives was to provide not only the development of civil society in the respective candidate country, but also the involvement of civil society actors in the accession process.

Turkey started accession negotiations on October 2005, soon after the first wave of eastern enlargement. The poor levels of mutual knowledge of the respective public opinions – as well as the undeniable concern in European public opinion about Turkish culture and that the Turkish state and society have values and practices incompatible with those of the EU – compelled the EU to pay particular attention to civil societal elements in Turkey. Since the beginning of accession negotiations with Turkey, the EU’s expressed desire for civil society organizations to play an important role during the accession became stronger and the EU started paying special attention to its ‘civil society policy’ in Turkey. This renders Turkey an interesting case to study.

At this point, it should be noted that the EU is not the sole mechanism that has had an impact on civil society in Turkey. There have been interrelated internal and external processes that are also known to direct Turkish modernization and thus have impacted upon the relative growth and the increasing visibility of civil society organizations in Turkey. The main internal processes that created a favourable environment for civil society to function and provided encouragement to its actors in Turkey have been the liberal policies implemented in the country since 1980, which have entailed the partial removal of obstacles to political liberty as well as ‘the legitimacy crisis of the strong-state tradition’ to maintain its position as the primary context for politics (Keyman and İçduygu, 2003, p. 223). On the other hand, two key turning points, triggered by forces other than the aforementioned internal dynamics, have played a decisive role with respect to state and society relations in Turkey. The first important development has been the Habitat Conference that was hosted in Turkey in 1996. This Conference brought together hundreds of civil society organizations from all around the country and served as an important platform for raising awareness of the increasing importance of civil society on a global scale. The second important development was the Marmara Earthquake of 1999. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, several civil society organizations were mobilized and actively participated in search, rescue and disaster recovery efforts, as well as philanthropic activities.

The liberal policies of the post-1980 period, the relative change in strong state tradition, the 1996 Habitat Conference and the 1999 Marmara Earthquake were all key developments, which activated the civil society organizations in Turkey, and simultaneously contributed to raising awareness among the public about the importance of civic activism. However, it is the course of Turkey’s accession process to the EU that has had a far-reaching influence on state and society relations in Turkey. In particular the reform process triggered following the official announcement of Turkey’s candidacy to the EU in 1999 have resulted in the revision of the related legal and institutional framework, thus paving the way for the lifting of the on-going limitations since the 1980s over freedom of association and freedom of assembly. These reforms have been encouraging for civil society organizations, along with other actors of civil society, in that they have provided a less constrained structure for registration processes, international relations and management of assets, as well as many other areas. Therefore, much of the recent developments relating to the current state of civil society organizations in Turkey owe a debt to the EU accession process.

Along with the improved legal and institutional environment and following the objectives set out by the EU within the context of its civil society policy, Turkish civil society has benefited from an increasing amount of financial and technical support. However, the interviews indicate the ambivalent impact of these instruments and this environment on the support and involvement of Turkish civil society organizations in the accession process. In this context, the existence of a more fundamental problem inherent in this policy is a credible hypothesis. If the analyses in this book show that the conceptualization of civil society and, accordingly, state and society relations underlying the EU’s civil society policy does not correspond to those in Turkey, then we can account for the reasons behind this policy’s failure in Turkey.

EU approach to civil society

The conceptual foundations of EU civil society policy are largely based on the liberal-democratic model. The liberal-democratic model of civil society diverged as an independent approach from the ancient Greek-Continental European tradition, which had assumed conceptual unity between civil society (koinonia politiké, societas civilis, société civile, bürgerliche Gesellschaft, societa civile) and the state (polis, civitas, état, Staat, stato) and made no clear distinction between the two (Keane, 1988, pp. 35–36). The shift away from this tradition started with the emergence of liberal ideas in Europe following the Renaissance (Giner, 1995, p. 302). Later, the rise of classical liberal economic theory and market economy with self-organized economic activities of the society brought about a fundamental turn in the ruling social order and the respective disintegration of the terms ‘civil society’ and ‘state’ (Edwards, 2004, p. 7).

This conceptual division between state and civil society in modern Western political thought has come to entail in practice a ready identification of civil society as necessarily opposed to the state. Accordingly, the existence of civil societal elements such as unions, associations, voluntary organizations, professional groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is considered to guarantee a check on the state and on its possible undemocratic attitudes. In other words, this conceptual cleavage in Western political thought brought about a positive correlation between civil society and democracy or democratization.

On the other hand, the ‘New Policy Agenda’ of neo-liberalism and liberal-democratic theory has come to dominate debates during the past couple of decades and has been influential in shaping EU civil society policy. As Edwards and Hulme (1996) point out, following the changing landscape of the welfare state and also the market failure of the 1980s, the New Policy Agenda gives NGOs renewed prominence for the roles they assume with respect to different economic, political and social issues. While the details of this Agenda may vary from one donor agency to another, it has been pursued by various bilateral and multilateral donor agencies since the end of the Cold War (p. 961).

The New Policy Agenda and the key role assigned to NGOs herewith resulted in what is now called ‘NGO-ization’. This does not simply mean the proliferation of NGOs, as it may wrongfully suggest at first sight. Indeed, the concept of NGO-ization refers to the increasing prominence awarded to NGOs as implementers of economic, political and social dimensions of New Policy Agenda (ibid., p. 962). NGO-ization suggests an understanding that proposes partnerships among the public, the private and the civic to overcome the economic, political and social problems faced by various states...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables, Figures and Maps
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction: Civil Society and the EU Approach
• 2 Establishing the Conceptual Framework
• 3 Understanding EU Civil Society Policy in Turkey
• 4 The Impact of EU Civil Society Policy in Turkey
• 5 What Goes Wrong? – I
• 6 What Goes Wrong? – II
• 7 Conclusion
• Appendices
• Notes
• Bibliography
• List of Personal Interviews
• Glossary
• Index