The most striking headline belonged to the Taraf daily. “Progressive Conservative” it read, apparently based on the analysis on the bold content of the address by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, re-elected as the chairman, unchallenged. This reminded me of an article I wrote for the German Süddeutsche Zeitung after the election victory of the AK Party in the summer of 2007. “Conservative, progressive, rooted” was its title. Despite the turbulent times and loaded with setbacks, it kept its characteristics intact. The latest congress reiterated this once more. The basic analysis remains the same: The world faces a party that, as an internal, complex coalition, emerged from the profound fatigue of the masses and the “end of the road” of the elitist, manipulative, insincere, visionless and fearful political class. At its core, the AK Party bore a deeply rooted conservatism that tried to vocalize a desire to inject the element of religion into democracy. Its birth as a movement also signaled a revised notion within that core that it had to survive on an internal and external consensus if it aimed to be a party that would carry its vision throughout the country.
But the identity would prove very soon to be insufficient -- indeed fragile -- for its political adventure. The leadership struggled almost constantly on how to overcome the vulnerable stand of the “ruling internal coalition,” i.e. the party itself, simply because the sheer challenge it symbolized had set in motion all the undemocratic ghosts and demons against it. Also the fact that the fully erratic behavior of the leadership of what was expected to be a credible “opposition,” the Republican People's Party (CHP), helped increase its size and position, which fuelled the perceptions that the party was a “threat” to the already frail democratic system.
It can be said that a purification of identity could not happen, mainly due to the composite nature of the leading groups and the misreading of strength vis-à-vis the path and methods of dealing with the hugely chronic problems of Turkey. The lack of clarity and misinterpretations of reality meant that the AK Party managed to awaken and fulfill some big hopes and at the same time caused suspicion, fear and desperation. It has been skillful in sending out mixed signals, while paradoxically keeping its stamina -- and considerable amount of focus -- for the arduous agenda.
Because of this, the sui generis nature of the AK Party would inevitably be consolidated by the element of “progressiveness” that, despite sharp zigzags in the past seven years, does not seem to cease to impose itself. The weekend's convention has once again shown that the leadership of the party sees this as the irreversible path -- of survival, of strength and of success.
Does the congress mean a new beginning, a complete “reload”? As seen before, the messages and acts by Erdoğan have to be carefully observed, but this time -- because the party now has gripped the horns of more than one bull -- with more intense care.
First, the changed composition of the Central Executive Committee is noteworthy. It is a good sign for Turkish democracy that a conservative party shows its progressive side by increasing the number of women there (it is now around 30 percent) and exposes the macho nature of its “modern” rivals. The inclusion of names such as Bülent Arınç, Ahmet Davutoğlu, Hüseyin Çelik, Suat Kınıklıoğlu and Mazhar Bağlı, a mixture of conservative and liberal leaning intellectuals, also signals the continuity of bold moves ahead concerning the Kurdish issue, Armenian-Turkish normalization and non-Muslim minority reform.
Much cannot be said of Erdoğan's lengthy speech because it was linear and clearer than ever. He repeatedly emphasized diversity, brotherhood and sisterhood, “wrongs” of the past, the need for unity while solving problems, dignity and peaceful coexistence. He called for healing the wounds of history and respect for justice. He was careful not to alienate pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP), omitting some sentences from the text, and also underlined the need to talk to the CHP's leader. Using a Turkish proverb, he said, “We are, after eating the grapes, not beating the owner of the vineyard.”
Conservative it is. But now it remains to be seen whether Erdoğan will deliver on various fronts at the same time while under the pressure of time. If -- but if -- he chooses to rely on the “progressive” part, he can. If, after all the attempts, his adversaries refuse to cooperate in national issues, he should go it alone. He can open the borders to Armenia; he can deal with the Halki Seminary issue; and he can continue to reform the Kurdish problem. He needs all the domestic support that can be provided and must be encouraged externally as well. On the Cyprus issue, he is completely right: The EU must do its outmost for a just solution, refusing to be a hostage of a member in conflict.
