Turkish Politics and the Rise of the AKP

Arda Can Kumbaracibasi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781134007660
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: History

The Justice and Development Party (AKP) has been in power since 2002. This book is the first book-length analysis to chart the rise and development of the party from its Islamist roots through to government, analysing in particular its internal organisation and dynamics. Since its foundation in 2001, the AKP seems to have been more successful than any other party with an Islamic background in the history of the Turkish Republic. Drawing on interviews and analyses of quantitative data from primary and secondary sources, the author examines the party's character as an organisation, its internal power structure, its electoral roots, strategy and leadership in the context of its organisational environment - including its constitution, major veto players as well as international actors. Going beyond a mere analysis of Turkish politics and parties, this book applies classical theories and models on political parties to the Turkish case. Focusing on the notion of 'institutionalisation' and its two main dimensions, autonomy and 'systemness', it makes an original contribution to both the empirical study of the AKP, contemporary Turkish Politics and the general discussion on theories of party organisation.

1
Introduction

In representative democracies, political parties are simultaneously guarantors of stability and agents of change. On the one hand, they aggregate political demands (Almond and Powell 1966), structure electoral choice for the voters, and provide necessary (though not sufficient) conditions for stability in parliamentary decision-making (Aldrich 1995, Cox 1987, Müller 2000). At a more empirical level, the predominant patterns of party conflict in most advanced industrial and post-industrial societies have remained remarkably stable over the past century. The adaptability of political parties has contributed to this stabilization of political choice (Lipset and Rokkan 1967, Dalton 2006, Dalton and Wattenberg 2000a, Mair 1997). On the other hand, however, parties are organizations that do respond to economic, social, and political change in their environment. Some adapt to changing circumstances; others fail to do so and disappear; new parties emerge and sometimes rise to government status. In that sense, parties reflect change and are agents of political change at the same time (McDonald, Budge and Pennings 2004).

The emergence and organizational stabilization of new political parties—and particularly their rise to governmental office—has typically had serious repercussions for their leaders, members, and traditional electoral clienteles. Such changes usually require internal adjustments, which may be painful for the relevant party as an organization. The history of social democratic and socialist parties developing from social movements to political parties in opposition (opposing the government and in some cases the political and economic system, too) and, later, to government parties (usually within the existing political system)—demonstrates the scope for internal conflicts that may result from such changes and adaptations (Sassoon 1996, Strøm and Müller 1999c, Strøm 2000, Müller 2000, May 1973, Kitschelt 1989b, Gunther, Montero and Linz 2002).

The recent rise of the Turkish Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (Justice and Development Party—AKP) as a center-right party with a religious ideological background is an example of such a transformation in a different context. The socio-economic transition that Turkey has undergone since the 1980s has altered the conditions for party competition and shifted ideological formations (Sayarı and Esmer 2002). The 2002 elections brought a new phase to the party-political structure of the country. The young AKP—it was formed only in 2001¹—won a landslide victory, the parliamentary consequences of which were exaggerated by an electoral system that enabled its leaders to form the first single-party government since 1987, controlling nearly two-thirds of the seats in the Turkish Grand National Assembly (Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi—TGNA). The party was able to consolidate its position of power in the local elections of 2004, although these elections had the character of a “mid-term” test in which voters often express their dissatisfaction with a government party. The 2007 election, as most pre-electoral surveys had predicted (Kene

2007), led to a strengthening of the party’s electoral base. The result of the election, which was held after this study was completed, confirms the finding of the research presented here, which focuses on the period between 2000 and the end of the AKP’s first term in government, in July 2007.

The AKP’s success (and the dynamic changes in Turkey’s party system it reflects) is in itself reason enough to carry out a careful analysis of this party’s organization, members, and voters as well as its leadership’s strategy. To my knowledge (at the time of writing—February 2008), this study offers the first book-length analysis of the organization and institutionalization of this party in the English language. The AKP is a fascinating object of study: its rapid rise from a new party (at least nationally) to the dominant party in the Turkish parliament (receiving 34 percent of the national vote and 66 percent of the seats under a 10 percent national threshold for parliamentary representation in the electoral system) has been spectacular, and can be understood only against the backdrop of a deep crisis among the established Turkish parties. The party’s attempt to portray itself as a “modern,” moderate, center-right party with Islamic roots (AKP Election Manifesto and Party Program) supporting liberal-democratic constitutional values has generated considerable interest. The party is often identified as a potential model for other Islamic movements and parties, and it provides an interesting “test case” for the compatibility of moderate Islam and liberal democracy.

Beyond this intrinsic interest, a study of the AKP could contribute to the wider theoretical debate on the ability of political parties to adapt to changing environments; on the institutionalization of political parties; and on the challenges faced by “new” government parties. While a number of theoretical frameworks have been developed to map—and occasionally explain—such changes (see, among others, Mair 1997, Panebianco 1988, Deschouwer 2005, Strøm and Müller 1999c, Strøm 2000, Kitschelt 1994, Müller 2000, Gunther, Montero and Linz 2002), these models were usually developed in (and often for) the study of parties in Europe and North America. On the most general theoretical level, therefore, this study provides some tests for the “applicability and generalizability” of such theories beyond the spatial, historical, cultural, and political contexts of traditional “Western democracies.”²

Empirically, the AKP’s rise is of general interest to comparativists and party theorists who examine party-system change: the AKP has had to cope with rapid electoral and membership growth as well as its sudden rise to the status of government party with an overwhelming parliamentary majority. In some respects it faces problems like those faced by socialist parties of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and, to a lesser extent, green parties during the 1980s and 1990s, or other protest parties that benefited from a sudden surge in voter support (although the AKP’s success has been exceptional in comparison). Many of these parties failed to adjust to their new role, and were unable to consolidate their electoral support or institutionalize their organization. Their leaders failed to manage the transition from a “policy-seeking” non-governmental party or social movement to being a party in public office that has to balance its original (and often radical) policy goals with the demands and strains of govenment (Panebianco 1988, Strøm and Müller 1999c, Strøm 2000, Müller 2000, Mair 1997). The AKP provides opportunities to study the way party leaders seek to manage this transition.

This study is based on the notion of “institutionalization,” as introduced by Angelo Panebianco (1988) in his seminal work on party organization. This concept is of obvious relevance to a new political party seeking to establish itself in its political environment. According to Panebianco, the degree of institutionalization a party attains should be measured in two dimensions: the organization’s degree of “autonomy “vis-à-vis its environment; and its degree of “systemness”—that is, “the degree of interdependence of its different internal sectors” (Panebianco 1988:55). These concepts will be explained in Chapter 2, where it will be argued that these two dimensions provide crucial insights into the development of political parties. However, Panebianco has been relatively unspecific about the relationship between autonomy and systemness as the two main dimensions of a party’s organizational institutionalization. One of the main and original arguments of this study is that the AKP faces complicated trade-offs between these two dimensions, which present a serious strategic dilemma for the party’s leadership: if the leadership increases systemness, it runs the risk of losing autonomy and vice versa. If it enhances its internal levels of membership involvement and responsiveness to grassroots demands (an important aspect of systemness), for example, it may risk losing autonomy by alienating median and non-religiously oriented voters as well as important veto players in the political system. Therefore, as will be argued later, the leadership has attempted to optimize the level of institutionalization rather than seek to maximize institutionalization in both dimensions. The detailed exploration of this trade-off (using the AKP as a case study) extends Panebianco’s theoretical framework and offers an original contribution to the theoretical literature on party organization.

Given the rapid party-system change Turkey has experienced since the 1950s (Chapter 6), the AKP’s survival chances as a major political force in Turkish politics will depend, among other factors, on its ability to maintain its core voter base in the Islamic sections of Turkish society and to convert the less committed protest voters it attracted in 2002 to more loyal supporters with a degree of attachment to the party. This requires a balancing act, which can be analyzed in terms of Panebianco’s dimensions of autonomy and systemness (see Chapter 6). A similar point could be made for the party’s ability to maintain and enhance its systemness as an organization. As will be shown in Chapter 7, Turkish political party organizations have been characterized by populist and centralized leadership resulting in frequent breakaways from these parties and the establishment of new ones. If the AKP is to avoid the fate of its predecessors, it needs to balance its internal systemness and responsiveness to activists with its attempt to gain autonomy in the political system. While this is true for any party, it is more problematic for Islamist and radical parties with religiously or ideologically highly committed supporters. Balancing the AKP’s roots in Islamic parties and movements against its claims to be a moderate party far from radicalism and fundamentalism is a permanent organizational challenge, forcing the leadership constantly to seek and maintain a precarious equilibrium.

The study will investigate this balancing act in the following steps. Chapter 2 will be devoted to the development of a theoretical and analytical framework that will contribute to the understanding of the strategic dilemmas faced by the AKP faces, the trade-offs involved in the process of its institutionalization, and the options available to its leaders for managing these dilemmas. It will be argued that Panebianco’s notion of institutionalization provides an appropriate theoretical tool to analyze some of the dilemmas the AKP faces as a party. Also, the use of “heresthetic” is important in understanding how parties and leaders seek to mitigate the potential damage arising from these trade-offs. Following Riker (1984) and McLean (2001), the notion of heresthetic refers to strategic political leaders’ attempts to overcome disadvantageous situations by manipulating the political agenda and moving the political conflict to policy areas in which they can win without necessarily changing people’s underlying preferences. The final part of the chapter will briefly lay out the methodology and the primary sources used in the study.

Chapter 3 will review the literature on the AKP, identifying lacunae in our understanding of the party and some shortcomings in previous theoretical accounts of party and party-system change in relation to the study of Turkish party politics.

Having set out the background to the study, key elements of the organizational context constraining the AKP will be illuminated in two descriptive chapters, which are necessary to contextualize the party’s development. The first of these, Chapter 4, describes the constitutional and legal environment affecting the party’s institutionalization and room for maneuver in government, stressing the general constitutional constraints within which the party operates. In particular, it will deal with the impact of the “Law on Political Parties” (Siyasi Partiler Kanunu— SPK) in shaping intra-party politics, communication, and organization; and the role of certain courts in constraining Turkish party politics. It also shows the problematic aspects of the SPK and electoral laws. Chapter 5 looks at the major political actors who possess (and exert) political power and influence in the Turkish political system: the President, the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the TGNA, political parties, local administrations, interest groups, universities, the NSC (Milli Güvenlik Kurulu —National Security Council) and the armed forces, labor unions, corporations, and mass media.

These background chapters will be followed by the main empirical part of the study. Chapter 6 starts by analyzing the development of the party’s electoral environment since the 1950s. The first part of this chapter provides background information on important aspects of the electoral history and geography, focusing on party identification and voting behavior, the AKP’s and its predecessors’ electoral strength in its regional variations, and the impact of different electoral systems adopted in the history of the Turkish Republic. This will help to illustrate a number of secondary theoretical notions, aiding understanding of the AKP’s institutionalization in its electoral environment. These theoretical notions refer to the center-periphery cleavage in Turkish party politics, the importance of protest voting, and certain cyclical dynamics in Turkey’s electoral history. These theoretical notions will then be used to analyze continuity and change in electoral alignments and Turkey’s relatively high levels of electoral volatility; the geography of voting patterns in Turkey, and its implications for the AKP’s electoral and campaign strategy. By using these theoretical notions, it is possible to shed light on the AKP’s strengths and historical roots in electoral terms. It will be demonstrated that the AKP connected to the traditional support base for Islamic parties, but also managed to extend its electoral appeal beyond traditional Islamic core voters. After locating the AKP’s electoral success in 2002 in the longer-term developments of Turkey’s electoral “landscape,” Chapter 6 provides a detailed analysis of the 2002 national and 2004 local elections, using aggregate as well as individual-level data.

In Chapter 7, the AKP’s organizational evolution and adaptation are analyzed in some depth. Different levels of party organization are analyzed with an emphasis on party finance, heterogeneity (differentiating groups and factions within the organizational structure), and relations with collateral organizations. But most importantly, this chapter focuses on the organizational adaptations the party made in the face of the dilemma sketched above, including its centralization and the problems of intra-party democracy curtailing the scope for democratic forms of systemness. This problem is not peculiar to the AKP. General surveys conducted among some major Turkish parties on intra-party democracy will be used to demonstrate the extent of dissatisfaction with such problems within the internal structure of parties.

Chapter 8 focuses on party ideology. Using programmatic texts and election manifestos, it will demonstrate how the party leadership used heresthetic in Riker’s (1984) sense to occupy a significant niche in Turkey’s electoral “market” and manage some of the dilemmas of institutionalization: that is, balancing autonomy and systemness. The data used allow the party’s location to be established in relation to other parties in the Turkish political system with a relatively high degree of precision. Furthermore, an exploration will be made into whether the AKP has adopted an ideological strategy similar to those of the Christian democratic parties of Europe, combining moderate center-right policies in the realm of economic and international policy with conservative positions on social values, religion, and law and order.

In the concluding chapter (Chapter 9), the main findings of the study will be summarized and discussed in light of the theoretical framework developed in Chapter 2.

2
Towards a theoretical framework

Background

In this chapter a theoretical framework will be developed based on theories of party organization and political leadership.¹ At the heart of this framework will be Panebianco’s (1988) notion of party “institutionalization.” Nevertheless, the framework developed here is not merely an application of Panebianco’s theory. Rather, it points to a problem that has not been fully addressed by Panebianco and those applying his theoretical work: the main dimensions of party institutionalization, “autonomy” and “systemness,” as he calls them, may not always be related to each other in a positive correlation; they may, in fact, require political leaders to trade off one dimension against the other and lead to difficult strategic choices (see below). In theoretical terms, this dilemma is the main focus of this study. Moreover, Panebianco’s relatively general framework will have to be extended in order to understand the precise interactions within the party and in the Turkish party system. In addition, individual chapters will often refer to further theoretical work that may be better suited to conceptualize or explain the detail of developments below the level of the “bigger picture” of the dilemma of institutionalization.

The development of studies on political parties as organizations has followed a complicated pattern, starting with the influential work of Mois...