They claimed that if the AK Party seized control of the presidency as well, then the entire nation would be forced to accept and abide by Islamic law. Certainly, the image of thousands of women carrying the Turkish flag in one hand and a portrait of Ataturk in the other attracted the attention of most people in the world, especially in the West. Images of the protest were on front pages. They were perceived as warnings about Turkey’s future, that Turkey would turn away from the West and democracy toward the Middle East and that any means to prevent such a slip would be acceptable.
The memorandum the General Staff published on their Web site on April 27 was assessed under the influence of this psychological atmosphere. Society was concerned that laicism and democracy were in danger and so as the guardian of these values, the military had decided to issue a memorandum to the government.
The initial reports and images in the international media mostly reflected the events in Turkey as tense and troublesome. However, there were no reports on whether the non-governmental organizations and supposed democratic leaders at the protest rallies were really in favor of Turkey’s democratization process. The media had also neglected the fact that the protestors were only concerned with a democracy limited to themselves. They even forgot to mention that people with such world views had less then 1 percent of public support in previous elections and in current public polls.
The only way one could be unaffected by the images of Tandoğan and Çağlayan was if they were familiar with recent changes in Turkey and can differentiate between the words and deeds of various actors. It is also very important that one have good intentions and no special political engagement.
Turkey’s close relations with Europe proved to be very beneficial for democracy during this period because EU institutions, which are responsible for preparing reports on Turkey, were very familiar with the actors in Turkey. These institutions closely followed recent developments in Turkey. Hence, they knew that those individuals and organizations that were shouting slogans on democracy were in fact anti-democratic -- while the government, which was the target of the protests, was on the other hand very determined in the democratization process.
Thanks to the EU’s close contact with the Turkish public and politics, they could properly interpret the purpose of a demonstration that was participated in by ultra nationalist lawyer Kemal Kerinçsiz or retired general Şener Eruygur. Due to those relations, member of the European Parliament Cem Özdemir realized that the CHP who seems to be the champion of democracy and secularism, in fact was neither socialist nor democratic and he even recommended that the party align with fascist groups instead of Socialists.
While Europe did not succumb to traps, I believe its open and clear stance influenced America to adopt a determined stance as well, especially after the military’s declaration.
This period served as an opportunity for those in Turkey who sincerely support democracy to develop a closer relation with the EU. This will subsequently benefit Turkey’s EU negotiation process. Although this relationship is not a guarantee for Turkey’s membership, it has helped Turkey to stand stronger against anti-democratic blows. If Turkey’s relations with the EU were not as deeply rooted, then striking another blow on Turkey’s democracy would have been as easy as it has been in the past.
Another positive development during this period has been the fact that respected European and American media institutions started to report more accurate analyses of Turkey instead of exaggerated, impractical opinions. Take, for example, the editorial of The Washington Post on May 1. The paper asserted that the developments in Turkey over the past five years prove that there is no reason to worry about the AK Party government and concluded that “the principal threat to democracy in Turkey comes not from the AK Party but from its opponents.”
As for the Guardian, one of the Europe’s most prestigious newspapers, it posed the question if there were any valid reason for the laicists to be concerned. The paper responded that concerns were exaggerated and that Erdoğan was a leading figure in Turkey’s EU membership process. Erdoğan wanted to improve Turkey’s administration and human rights to the standard of Europe by implementing political and economic reforms. During the AK Party administration, the annual income per capita multiplied and Turkey’s development rate reached 7.3 percent.
