However, it is only natural that a significant part of the Turkish population holds similar views with regard to a historical process over which almost the entire world is in agreement in terms of the notions to be used in describing it. Therefore, it was not the presence of this sort of approach that made the state uncomfortable and upset. I should note that many people in the past have made harsher statements than the content of this declaration. Besides, an ordinary man traveling around Anatolia may observe that our citizens are more relieved now and are rid of the ideological pressure of the official discourse with regard to the 1915 events. Turkey is changing, and this change points to the emergence of a new mindset. In this way, a historical rhetoric that has never been questioned but whose inaccuracy has become obvious is being abandoned. It is impossible for the government not to notice this new environment because they should know better how their voters have changed. So how can we explain the stance and reaction of the prime minister and the Foreign Ministry, with which we are familiar, having heard them from the General Staff and other circles that make flawed intellectual statements, such as university senates? Besides, such reactions came after President Gül's true guidance in this matter when he was asked about the campaign.
Should we assume that all members of this administration have no knowledge at all about the past? I think the problem is being restricted by political considerations rather than a lack of knowledge. There are two interrelated reasons behind these reactions. First, the government is concerned about losing the moral advantage in its relations with Armenia because the declaration of apology inevitably raises the bar and takes the issue to the conscience of society rather than being a matter of discussion between nation-states. It is not impossible to produce accurate policies in bilateral relations by making reference to power. Such approaches will remain ineffective in the formation of a functional policy as they will be weak in terms of legitimacy. In other words, it seems that the apology declaration increases the burden of the government vis-à-vis Armenia. It is now only natural that the step awaited by the world from Turkey will include such a conscience.
However, the state does not want this, and the government now knows the state well. This declaration, issued right before the elections at a time when the government was at peace with the state, was perceived as some sort of blockage because it made the administration ambivalent between world opinion and the state and narrowed its sphere of action. The subsequent interference by diplomats and the military prevented the government from returning to a more balanced and objective style and action. In such a way, a state solidarity emerged with respect to this issue.
The other reason for the prime minister's reaction is the impact of the narrowing sphere of action in foreign policy-making on internal politics before the elections. The only sphere where the AK Party remains successful is foreign policy, and everyone is focused on how relations with Armenia will work. The government is unable to take steps aimed at reform in domestic politics because it is aware that subsequent steps will not follow. But this is not the case in foreign policy: Positive steps in relations with Armenia may especially make the government prestigious again in the eyes of the EU. However, developments after the apology declaration will jeopardize the likelihood that the government will use the coming months for this purpose. The government, which seems to be the most reform-minded actor in the country, is now well behind a few people who are making this attempt. This implies that the AK Party government is also losing the Western world.
On the other hand, there is one thing that government authorities have straight: The opposition in Turkey now has the opportunity to deadlock Armenian politics because nationalist opposition to the apology declaration may easily be manipulated and mobilized; the AK Party cannot consider dealing with such a reaction before the elections.
There is one thing that is pretty obvious: The declaration of apology seriously undermined the government's ability to act freely against the West as an administration that fails to enact domestic reforms. But this is how an open society looks. No society can ever determine the dosage and direction of change by considering the state's priorities or opinions. The function of politics is to sense and comprehend this change. If you wait for the state's action and reflexes, you will sometimes miss society.
