So far I have not encountered any such scenario that was truly meaningful. I can define them as pathetic texts, produced mainly for Western public opinion, trying to predict the behavior of the country studied only cursorily and purely based on the behavior of political actors. Also, it is not hard to guess that these texts may have manipulative effects, and that using these scenarios some groups in the country concerned may be lured into pursuing certain policies or mobilizing public opinion in certain directions.
For many years, these scenarios would be produced about Turkey, and the mainstream media would publish them as “scientific studies.” Although they are no longer capable of manipulating the Turkish public, we know that these scenarios are still attractive to US think tanks. The Center for Global Affairs (CGA) at New York University (NYU) has recently produced a similar text. As is known, there are always three alternatives in such scenarios. Two of them are not concerned with being realistic; rather, they depict some extreme cases as “possible” results. The third one is more “realistic and objective” compared to the other two and allows its authors to indulge in manipulative policies.
Indeed, the first two scenarios by the CGA accommodate rather funny elements such as their prediction that Turkey will become an Islamic and military dictatorship. Indeed, such developments lack any social basis. If it were only for potential ideological or irrational decisions by the political actors, these scenarios might have been meaningful to some extent. However, today, the main decisive dynamic is society, not politics. Thus, any political actors who can understand and represent social demands can grow. Given the social trends, it is not hard to see that neither Islamism nor military tutelage is a functional alternative.
Thus, we arrive at the third “realistic” alternative, which is marketed under the attractive title of “political pluralism.” Here are its forecasts about the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party): The AK Party will fail to respond to voters' expectations; it will try to breach constitutional boundaries; it will try to introduce a presidential system; it will step up its pressure on the media; and it will tilt toward an Islamic foreign policy. Meanwhile, the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) will develop an attractive social democratic program, and the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) will become more mature. Thus, the center left will merge with Kurds to emerge as an alternative government, and with an equal distribution of votes in the 2015 elections, a crisis will emerge to split the AK Party into two.
Before discussing these predictions, let me ask: What sort of “political pluralism” is this as it assumes that the AK Party will consistently pursue wrong policies, while the CHP and the BDP will act in a correct way at all times? This scenario is actually making the following implication: Today, the AK Party is “unfortunately” acting in the correct way, while the other two are “unfortunately” making mistakes. In this case, wouldn't it be better if all of them do the “right” thing in the future -- that is, the AK Party continues to implement reforms while the CHP and the BDP support these reforms? Must the AK Party do the wrong thing for the sake of political pluralism?
We don't need any in-depth analysis. The CGA's “realistic” scenario is nothing but the manifestation of a manipulative effort as a result of a secular unease. On the other hand, we need to see that this scenario, a product of “thinking,” relies on assumptions that imply a clear lack of reasoning. Indeed, those who are cognizant of the internal dynamics of the AK Party and its relations with society should predict that this party will never make these mistakes. The AK Party may be experiencing difficulties in going beyond the established boundaries with respect to democratization, but it is also acting extremely fastidiously in order to not fall into the trap of becoming an authoritarian party. There is a simple reason for that: They know that if they fall into that trap, the support for them of the religious segment of the population will diminish. Moreover, the CHP and the BDP have such strong ideological impediments that it is a delusion to expect these parties to act as suggested by the scenario. Also, the voter base of these parties is still not free from their authoritarian mentality and at least 10 years, i.e., a new generation, will be needed for this impediment to be overcome.
It should be nice to produce scenarios for “undeveloped” countries and societies. I guess discussions were quite efficient and “satisfactory.” Without understanding a society, one cannot travel very far through political actor analyses that are built according to their own ideological clichés.
