Was it an Islamist party? Was it nationalist? Was it a center party? Was the party on the periphery? While the debate continues, the AK Party's leading figures have come up with a definition, suggesting, “The AK Party is a conservative democrat party.”To underline its major principles on many occasions, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan suggested that the AK Party pursues a policy of “one nation, one state, one flag,” a famous nationalist motto. During the election periods in recent years, Erdoğan especially stressed this motto to present his party as committed to defending the nationalist principles of the Turkish state. His election rhetoric created concerns among liberal intellectuals who were the forerunning supporters of the AK Party during the early years of its power when the state bureaucracy was resisting the AK Party government. Liberal intellectuals who have enough access to media outlets to cause an upheaval over the AK Party divorced it and labeled it as the same old nationalist party. However, despite its efforts to get close to the state establishment, the establishment, under the leadership of military generals, has rejected the AK Party's attempts to get closer to where they are. The April 27, 2007 e-memorandum was a good example that reminded the AK Party where it belongs in the eyes of the establishment. The investigations into the Ergenekon network showed what the establishment was planning against the AK Party government. Last, but not least, the closure case at the Constitutional Court was an “answer” to the AK Party's endeavors to knock on the state elites' door to accept the AK Party being right next to them.
The AK Party's defeat in the latest local elections in the Kurdish region and the coastal part of the country has come as the last wake up call for it to redeem its standing. Since the local elections, liberals and the AK Party have been flirting once again. With the liberals' support behind the AK Party, it is walking in territory that is not really approved of by the nationalists and the state establishment.
The Kurdish initiative, the Cyprus problem and the Armenian initiative are the three major issues that touch a nerve of the state establishment, including military leaders. However, the AK Party, with its recent policies, has been poking them. The AK Party leadership may think that they are treating the long-standing problems of the country with “acupuncture,” but they do not realize that the majority of this society loves their illness, a nationalist view that is constructed against Armenians, Kurds, non-Muslim minorities and the West in general. More importantly, they have their own doctors, i.e., nationalist party leaders, generals, journalists and professors who give them “nationalist narcosis” when they are in crisis.
The mental discomfort of the nationalist segments of society deep down has reignited the old debate about the AK Party. What does this party stand for? Is it a nationalist party? Is it a liberal party? Is it a conservative democrat party and so on.
It is still very difficult to define where the AK Party stands within the measure of the traditional divisions of Turkish society. However, one thing is clear; the AK Party, especially with its recent policy preferences toward Kurds, Armenia and the non-Muslim minorities in Turkey, has been moving the social lines that divide society. Traditionally, Muslim conservatism in this country is well amalgamated with nationalist flavors, and the AK Party is a by-product of this amalgamation. Nevertheless, with its step toward Kurds and Armenia, the majority of conservatives have been changing their outlook toward Kurds and Armenians. This change of view would be a major distinction between the nationalists and the conservatives in this society. If the AK Party successfully implements its policies toward Kurds, Armenia and the Jewish and Christian minorities in this country, a decade from now we will see conservatives having left their nationalist outlook behind and adopted a more liberal view toward the major issues in this country.
In fact, it was their nationalist outlook that has always contradicted with their Islamist conscience to show their empathy toward the oppressed, something Islam as a religion advocates. Since Islamism has been defined as “Turkish Islamism,” especially since the 1970s, conservative segments of society have tended to ignore the sufferings of the country's Kurds and non-Muslim minorities. That was because the nationalist quality of their worldview has killed their religious conscience. Now the AK Party's policies have been reconstructing what conservatism is.
Related to reconstructing conservatism, Turkish nationalism is being redefined as well. With the AK Party's policies, it appears that the nationalist debate has been reduced to two major issues. The first and most important issue for nationalists is the concept of “ülke,” the country. In traditional nationalist discourse it is the concept of “vatan,” the secret place that people feel attached to, that is used. Vatan is a place where people feel safe, it is a precious thing that was saved from invaders and something with which religion was well acquainted. Since the AK Party came to power, the emphasis on vatan has disappeared in the public sphere. The religious attachment to the concept of vatan has been totally reduced.
Now, even in the language of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which still remains a party that holds some degree of Islamic tone in its rhetoric, we do not see the term vatan being used. Instead, the MHP leadership uses the term ülke. The difference between vatan and ülke is the religious attachment to it.
The second concept is secularism. It appears that nationalist circles are becoming more secular then ever. This subject deserves more thought, and I am planning to write more on it in the forthcoming days. For now, I would say, conservatives have lost their vatan, and nationalists now have their ülke. This is the first outcome of the social transformation of the last decade.
