I objected, and argued that the true divide in Turkey is between those who want a democratic, open and transparent Turkey, and those who favor an authoritarian or managed democracy that secures the continuity of a particular elite. The last two weeks were a true test of where people stand on these issues. Turkey failed dismally in the test for democracy. Very few intellectuals, columnists and politicians were able to demonstrate a principled stance on the issue of the presidential election. Most of the Turkish media bowed to the pressure from the establishment to broadcast the two large-scale rallies, to provide ample airtime to the opposition and commentators who favored the military’s intervention into the democratic process. Most of the printed press equally sided with the interventionist mood on the grounds that secularism was under threat. There were two major events in 2007 when our democratic existence was severely threatened. The first event was the traumatic murder of Hrant Dink. The second event was the April 27 intervention, via an “e-memorandum,” by the Turkish military, which has effectively derailed the democratic process of the presidential election.
There is no way out of this mess but to go to a general election at the earliest opportunity, even before July 22 if that is possible. It is unclear how this process has impacted the electorate although I saw some data last week that indicated a 2 to 3 percent rise in support for the Justice and Development Party (AK Party). Yet a renewed sense of purpose and coalition has emerged among the pro-establishment parties as well. The coming weeks will define how the electorate’s perceptions will be shaped. The vote on July 22 will not only be about who should run the country, but it is also going to be a referendum on whether the Turkish public approves of the intervention of the military in the presidential race or not.
The true divide in this country is along how democratic and civil one is. Secularism and religion have become tools in what essentially is a power struggle between those who are pro-establishment and those who want an open and normal democracy.
Regardless of what one can extract from the political crisis there is no doubt that our democracy has failed a crucial test. Turkish democracy emerges out of this crisis as damaged. A critical opportunity to guide the AK Party into becoming a “Muslim Democrat” party similar to the German-type “Christian Democrat” party has been lost. The AK Party feels that it is still not accepted by the establishment. It feels it is being excluded and continues to be perceived as “the other” by the Turkish establishment, and has withdrawn into a defensive position. This cannot be in the interest of our democracy.
The political crisis also underlined that we were wrong to think that our democracy was on its way to normalization and becoming a European-style open and transparent regime that would allow the citizen to be equal to the state. The stability and predictability over the last four years has been shattered by a well-calculated political crisis. The AK Party has clearly underestimated the capacity of the establishment to manipulate the democratic process. The primary lesson to be taken from this process is that Turkey still is far from becoming a normal democracy. The media and the opposition, as well as a good portion of the political elite, clearly favor an authoritarian and managed democracy. We shall see on July 22 whether the electorate agrees with them.
