What the EU can't see

A brief review of this year's report shows that it is no different than those published in previous years. The report can be summarized as follows: "2009 should be a year of reforms."

It is obvious that Turkey needs reforms; there is no arguing otherwise. There are a number of problems in major fields, including the making of a new civilian and democratic constitution, civilian-military relations, torture and freedom of expression. Apparently, there has been no concrete progress in these fields. The report also makes references to the flaws and errors of the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), as well. Quite rightly, the report stresses the fact that the CHP took 16 bills supporting democratization moves as part of the EU reforms to the Constitutional Court. The attitude of the court should also be considered. But, frankly speaking it is not just the pro-status quo circles, the bureaucratic center and the CHP, the historical ally of these actors that serves as their speaker in Parliament, that are reluctant about the EU process. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), too, is hesitant to take steps toward the EU. Many intellectuals, liberals and leftist democrats have openly criticized this reluctance on the part of the government.

There are understandable reasons for this reluctance and slow movement. The governing AK Party, which has apparently changed its approach to the Kurdish issue dramatically, now adopts a political approach close to that of the bureaucratic center and the state. In this respect, there is hidden cooperation and implicit agreement and consensus on the strategies to be followed among the actors opposing Turkey's EU membership both in Turkey and Europe. Asked why Turkey is not given a specific date for full membership while a precise date has been announced for Croatia, EU Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn gave this interesting response: "It is not proper to compare Croatia and Turkey. This date issue is used as a pretext by both Turkey and the EU. Full membership in the EU is possible via political reforms, not pretexts and excuses."

Rehn's statement shows that the EU authorities now know Turkey better. This may look a little strange, but I think that despite their longstanding relations, the EU only knows Turkey a little. The start of negotiation talks provided the opportunity to get to know Turkey. From this perspective, it has been a huge asset and help because Turkey's EU policy has for a long time been shaped by an evasive approach, in which Turkish authorities never want to get serious. Turkey's fundamental state policy is this: EU membership will be insistently demanded but obstacles will be created before realization of this goal by remaining reluctant to introduce further reforms.

The primary reason for the AK Party's eagerness and sincerity to take Turkey to the EU as a full member between 2002 and 2005 was the extensive support for the process by religious people. This support opened the way for the AK Party to come to power and accelerated the EU membership bid.

Today we are not at the same point. The vast majority of religious people are no longer hopeful about the EU. EU circles and the intellectuals supportive of the EU bid in Turkey have failed to adequately respond to the demands of religious people. They have failed to take proper action to ensure the inclusion of their problems in the progress reports. The domestic intellectuals, in their attempts to inform the EU authorities, suggested that there was no serious religious problem and no trouble in regard to religious freedoms in Turkey. While the latest progress report makes references to the problems of all disadvantaged groups, including gays and transsexuals, it does not make a single mention of the problems the religious majority is facing. This is the primary reason for the decline of popular support for the membership bid. Intellectual inquiry and support will not suffice to get full membership; it will also require popular support.