This is certainly the ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) undertaking. After three or so tumultuous years and an apparent “pulling itself together,” this post-Islamist and globalist political movement, entrenched in an identity carrying the pious and democratic periphery to the center and forcing the elite to redefine itself, is now on a full, frontal offensive, with the consequence of changing decades-old paradigms. Its policies in reducing problems with its neighbors to zero and aiming at a new social deal with Kurds and other minorities may give finally the saying of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the republic, “Peace at home, peace in the world,” the meaning it has so long deserved.But a major question keeping minds occupied is whether Turkey has become the global or even regional player that many key figures within the AKP say it is. Two of them are Morton Abramowitz, a former US ambassador to Turkey, and Henri Barkey, a professor of international relations at Lehigh University.
In a joint article for the upcoming issue of Foreign Affairs titled “Turkey’s Transformers,” they paint a cautiously optimistic future for current AKP policies, particularly on “daunting domestic issues, bedeviling Turkey’s progress.”
Polarity, still very strong about the political identity and line of the AKP, has played a role of undermining change. While liberals, the center-right and democratically minded religious segments see the party as “fighting the dead hand of the past to free Turkish politics from subjugation by the military and the judiciary,” staunch secularists, the bureaucratic elite, anti-globalists and nationalists of the right and left insist on labeling it as an increasingly authoritarian, arrogant and oppressive force.
But is Turkey as simple as its -- particularly foreign -- observers claim it to be? No. To less old-fashioned, non-prejudiced watchers of Turkey and its long-ruling AKP, the recent history of Turkey is a mixture of economic success and advanced achievement in legal reforms and failures in adopting a new constitution and a set of flaws in implementing rights and freedoms as envisaged by its European Union goal.
A key issue -- a criterion of success for democratization -- has been whether the AKP marked progress in reducing the political role of generals. While the writers respond a “yes” to the question, they want us to be concerned about the “mother of all issues” -- apart from the Constitution -- namely the Kurds. “The AKP will live or die by its policies toward the Kurds,” they claim. While they are positive regarding the AKP’s noted successes with the Iraqi Kurds, there is concern on the domestic side. “The perspectives of both Turkey’s Kurds and influential elements in the AKP appear to be changing, but nothing can be taken for granted. The country is too divided,” they observe. “Nevertheless, Erdoğan has opened the door to truly radical change, and this will continue to generate fractious debate and uncertain consequences for Turkey’s stability.”
On the foreign policy front, Abramowitz and Barkey become more critical. As they praise Ahmet Davutoğlu for his drive and vision, they see many cons alongside the pros. They are concerned that all done in the name of multidimensional foreign policy may weaken Turkey’s ties with the EU or the US and caution the AKP “not to call every foreign policy initiative a success.”
While I find some arguments in this article on foreign policy a bit premature -- I agree with the description of domestic challenges -- the authors shed light on the prospects for the future with a gentle warning. “The AKP has a unique opportunity to change Turkish society, change the country’s constitution and its archaic political system, and make peace with both its neighbors and its own people. It seems ready to seize it. But it needs assistance. The West should not act as if Turkey is moving in the right direction in all respects, but it can help Turkey to becoming a tolerant liberal democracy. Turkey’s leaders, for their part, must not think that they can expand the country’s influence without first having a firm footing in the West. Without a successful reform effort, Turkey will continue to be just an aspirant grandeur,” they conclude.
I certainly hope that the key figures within the EU, including George Papandreou, some of whom (excluding Papandreou) have seemed to ignore the magic of “soft power,” read these warnings with care because they are the ones who are primarily addressed by this message.
