In order not to have this kind of fate, he proposed that Turkey should let go of a ‘wait and see ‘ policy and take on a more proactive stand instead.Taner’s statement received rather mixed reactions. Some argued that he challenged conservative and pro-status quo elements within the state calling for a strategic change in Turkish foreign and security policy, while for others Taner’s words pointed to the fatal dangers brought on by the process and actors of globalization. For the latter, theTurkish national state that has been under attack by global forces and their local collaborators and can only be saved by staging yet another struggle for independence, this time against the forces of globalization. The nationalists of the right and the left are alarmed by the prospect that it is no longer possible to carry on with the traditional national state, which is administratively centralized, socially homogenized and politically authoritarian, under the intense pressure of global and local/national actors. The ability of the state to control its own space and people, and impose a singular national identity has been greatly diminished. For a tradition that has always treated plural identities as a threat, this become worrisome. Let’s face it; theTurkish republic has always had difficulties in dealing with plural identities, ethnic and religious, it inherited from the Ottoman Empire. Instead of acknowledging this social and historical reality, the state chose to fight towards eliminating them.
A misconstrued notion, that a nation-state is composed of homogenous/homogenized national identity, still prevails at the higher echelons of power, constituting a major obstacle for Turkey’s full-fledged democratization. Obviously it is not an easy task to overcome this political culture of distrust towards “social forces” and the accompanied sense of insecurity held by the state elite. No doubt legislative and institutional reforms introduced in the EU process, since the first application for full membership in 1987 under the leadership of Turgut Ozal, have significantly improved the state-society relationship. But still there remain many steps to be taken in this regard.
To facilitate this, an overall positive attitude towards globalization that would allow Turkish governments to engage further with the outside world in a peaceful manner is required. A growing nationalist, anti-globalization and anti-western sentiment would bring with itself an authoritarian political model.Given Turkey’s strong engagement in economic, financial, political and social fields within global structures especially since the 1980s I do not expect a dramatic shift in Turkey’s global standing. Turkey has been anchored in global economy, social networks as well as political institutions.
However, it is better not to underestimate the power of anti-globalization forces in this country, and better not to fail in understanding their determination to go along with their cause at all costs. If not in social sectors, but certainly among the state elite, the influence of an alarmist anti-globalization rhetoric is very strong that can only be balanced through further democratization at home and greater engagement with the EU at an international front.
The future of nation-states is of their own making. The key to secure a prosperous future for this country is not to resist, but to further engage in the process of globalization, and respond positively to social demands coming from below for plural identities by abandoning an anachronistic notion of a single and homogonous nation state.
