His visit was warmly welcomed by those in power in EU institutions, but his declarations of undying support for the EU project, while much appreciated, seem to have also been received with some degree of skepticism, given that in recent times the CHP's actions, image and policies have become increasingly difficult to comprehend -- even to the degree that in some circles the social democratic CHP has been compared to a neo-nationalist party.
Baykal came with a number of objectives: to remind people what the CHP stands for and promote its new program -- which on paper, at least, looks quite impressive -- and to stress that Turkey's relations with the EU are a priority and that the CHP will continue to press the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) to speed up the reform process, although I can't remember them ever doing this. At the same time, he said there was a strong need for the EU to further embrace and support Turkey in this process and stop sending mixed messages, which continue to have a very damaging effect on the Turkish public, in which support for the EU is now at around 32 percent. The EU should also move away from its position of being seen as supporting a single party but should rather be seen as supporting Turkish democracy as a whole. And, of course, he carried out some AK Party bashing, sending the message that under the AK Party, Turkey is moving in the wrong direction, with the nation being steered down a dangerous path, putting Turkish secularism -- which he described as an ongoing project that should not be taken for granted -- at risk, including the destruction of the values and principles that have been shared by both the EU and Turkey for many years. He clearly sees himself as some sort of guardian angel!
Baykal believes his party has been "misunderstood" by the EU, and he clearly wanted to clean up the CHP's image as a party that is opposed to the EU. He underlined that the party has always and will always back Turkey's EU membership aspirations, citing the fact that it was former CHP leader İsmet İnönü that signed the Association Agreement in 1963, and to this end the CHP has moved over the years to bring Turkey closer to EU values and norms, or as Baykal put it, "the Western civilizations' way of life." During his news conferences with EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, he projected the actions of his party vis-à-vis the EU as if it had been actively pressing the government to speed up the reform process.
This probably came as news to most people here because, though it is recognized that the CHP was a constructive partner in the early days when it helped push through some significant reforms, recent history shows a different story. Indeed, when Baykal was asked during the question-and-answer session at the European Policy Centre about his party's lack of support on a number of recent issues, including the 367 quorum for presidential elections in Parliament, the amendment of Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), President Abdullah Gül's visit to Armenia and the rights of minorities in Turkey, he conveniently forgot to answer. But he did say that he fully backed the ongoing negotiations on the Cyprus problem and hoped it would end in a settlement, as well as stressing that he strongly believed that every Turkish citizen had a right to their own ethnic identity, to speak their own mother tongue and to read publications and watch television in their own language. Clearly in this respect he forgot his own fuzzy response to the recent launching of the new Kurdish language TRT-6 television channel. I don't recall Baykal or the CHP ever pushing the government for such initiatives; they have at best been unwilling bystanders.
Baykal also emphasized that he saw the relationship with the EU as paradoxical, given that after all the reforms implemented thus far, nobody could say that Turkish citizens were freer, more secure, more democratic or more European than they were before the start of the process. He stated that "the EU recipe cooked an unacceptable Turkey," claiming that rather than bringing Turkey closer to EU norms and values, the contrary had happened and Turkey was moving in the other direction and drifting away from the West and closer to the Middle East -- clearly as a result of AK Party policies, which were being ignored by the EU. His answer was that the EU needs to show greater courage and vision and offer Turkey stronger support in the process, which would in turn give a new boost to Turkey's relationship with the West. This could be done by the EU giving a much stronger promise to Turkey, including a date for accession. While he is right to point out that the EU should give Turkey stronger support, it is extremely unrealistic to believe that Turkey will get a date for membership -- even a tentative one. This mistake was already made with Romania and Bulgaria when then French President Jacques Chirac pushed the EU into offering both nations concrete timeframes. The result was that though neither country was ready to join in 2007, the EU had to honor its promise. It won't burn itself again in a hurry like this.
Baykal also used the occasion to have a good rant about the AK Party on a whole range of issues, including interfering in the education system, implanting their own people on various boards and committees, banning alcohol in some municipalities, using the Ergenekon case as a tool to get revenge on those opposed to it, etc. Although much of what he said was not new and touched on some issues that the EU has no business involving itself in, there were some issues that should be taken seriously. These include the continued banning of Web sites such as YouTube, the decrease in gender equality in Turkey as cited in a recent United Nations Development Programme index, the diminishing role of women in executive posts including in the government, the recent Freedom House Press index that shows a significant reduction in press freedom, increased corruption and levels of impunity in Parliament. In all of these cases, the situation in Turkey has deteriorated under AK Party rule and gives cause for worry. This is one of the tasks the opposition should be doing in its relationship with the EU; instead of ranting hysterically about the AK Party, they should attempt to have a constructive and clear approach to expressing their concerns to Brussels, something which will be appreciated.
So, to sum up: Baykal should have come earlier, but then again so should Prime Minister Erdoğan. Erdoğan had the same message as Baykal -- the EU is our priority, we support the reform process, we will do more. But no doubt the EU probably has the same question in mind for both leaders -- are you genuine? Or is this simply a ploy to win a few extra seats in the forthcoming March municipal elections? As the saying goes, "The proof of the pudding in is the eating," so we must wait and see what happens over the coming months. What the EU would really like to see would be both of these parties working together for the benefit of Turkey rather than against each other, which is a totally fruitless activity and bad for the nation.
They need to try to find some harmony and common ground, and if the EU membership goal can once again serve as this common ground -- given they both claim to back it -- this would be good news. Turkey needs a healthy political environment, which is not the case at the moment, and the EU would clearly welcome a multi-stakeholder approach to Turkey's EU accession process -- a process that was backed by the ruling party, the opposition, civil society, trade unions, etc. Such visits are always welcome, and Baykal and others in the opposition should not wait such a long time before they come again. It should be a regular event on their calendars.
