For the “yes” camp, it is slightly more complex. For some of its followers it will remove some of the obstacles before reform, setting a faster pace towards adopting democratic norms (not necessarily strictly linked with EU membership). For others it means a greater predictability in the globalized liberal Turkish economy. To many, it is a step forward for the supremacy of the rule of law. And, finally, as a vote of confidence it is a sort of “dress rehearsal” for Erdoğan’s aspirations to become the next president of Turkey.
We are seeing a country that is facing a crossroads, the significance of which should not be underestimated. The blowing winds shakes and stirs not only the main political actors, but also institutions, traditional professional organizations -- such as the trade unions -- and powerful civilian players such as the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association (TÜSİAD).
Maintaining priorities along with concerns of preserving a delicate balance has become a difficult task. TÜSİAD is suffering from a case of passivity, of not being able to take a side in a crucial issue (democratization) which it has been passionately and actively pushing for. TÜSİAD now argues, basically, that Turkey needs a new constitution, not a partial change to the existing one. This makes it sound like the current government is avoiding such and that their demand is based on a realistic assumption. But, sadly, it is not true and this stance pushes the powerful organization into a hypocritical position, by highlighting the group’s internal divisions over how to approach the government -- an apparent shift of focus.
Generally, much of the trouble over what position to take is a result of misreading what sort of changes are taking place in Turkey -- in its economy in particular. The axis is shifting, certainly. Goldman Sachs recently stated that growth in the global economy is now defined by 15 emerging countries, including Turkey, India, Brazil, South Korea, Russia and China. Their share in global trade is increasing along with their direct investment in South Asia and Africa. More than half of global production has shifted to these countries.
It would be a mistake if one does not put recent events into this global context, that of Turkey’s involvement in such a major shift in the world’s economic development. Süleyman Yaşar, a prominent expert on the Turkish economy and a columnist with the Sabah daily, explained how the socio-political geography of Anatolia (as opposed to TÜSİAD’s focus on İstanbul) is contributing and related to these changes. More than half of Turkey’s exports in the first half of 2010 originated from Anatolian cities. He gives the example of Antep, an eastern city, which now exports to over 140 countries with a volume of $5 billion per year.
I found one of the statistics he cited particularly striking. Arguing that “Turkey is now too small for Anatolian capital,” Yaşar refers to official figures, saying that around two-thirds of some 45,000 Turkish university students abroad are now from this or that part of Anatolia -- no longer mostly from İstanbul. This is a result of the economic boom that is taking place.
This means that there is no longer a defining center for business in Turkey. Anatolian economic players found an interlocutor in the AK Party, and their hopes and concerns will have a lot of weight on the outcome of the referendum. TÜSİAD’s misreading, which by its refusal to say yes seems to welcome uncertainty as an alternative, is based on the group’s ignorance of the AK Party’s major role as a mediator for the economic actors of Anatolia, as well as a lack of clarity in the alternative economic policies of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).
In this sense, if we agree that the referendum will be a vote of confidence, then at the end of the day it will also, inevitably, be about economic policies.
