Turkey’s prestige in the international arena is important in that it will help the government keep the will to reform strong and maintain its convincing power in the eyes of society. Thus, foreign policy is being used within the framework of this strategy of the AK Party as a lever that directly props up and nurtures domestic reforms. In other words, domestic reforms are presented as a natural extension of Turkey’s position within the wider global context and as a necessity.
Still, the government’s search for balance implies a strategic perspective that goes beyond just being valid for domestic and foreign policy because all the established and gangrenous problems of the country, which need immediate attention, imply that balances inside the state and society must eventually change. For this reason, every reform step taken refers to the balances that have been disrupted and that must be re-established. In this case, the AK Party channels its policies to seek and restore balance. As a matter of fact, being a party that lacks a tradition of an established state administration, the AK Party is justifiably guided by a fear of “letting everything get out of control.” Obviously, after having faced difficulties in penetrating the state bureaucracy and even having been misguided by this bureaucracy during the early years of its power, the government has, it seems, learned its lesson in taking slow but confident steps.
This, in turn, results in uncertainty -- and even inaction -- which liberals and democrats frequently criticize. Thus, the government gives the impression of a political player that sincerely wants to implement reforms, but hesitates to do what is required. Above all, there is also the fact that all the reforms that Turkey needs are closely connected to an identity. This further complicates things as the AK Party is more a side than a referee with respect to these fields of reform. Finally, what adds another layer of complexity to the matter is that reforms call for a new government system and the AK Party is mainly concerned with how it will be able to handle this new situation.
Thus, we start to make more sense of the multiple balance options standing before the government. In order to survive as a political power and satisfy the demands of the social groups it represents, it has to aggressively push the EU membership process, lend support to the “Obama diplomacy” and undertake structural reforms. Yet, while doing all these, it has to keep the reins of the civilian and military bureaucracy under tight control and try to maintain a balance among social groups. This, in turn, means that it has to watch for diligent timing and use a strategy of psychological preparation. This is the reason why the government pauses from time to time in its reform steps.
Whenever they feel that the reform steps being taken might disrupt the pscyhological balance among social groups or whenever there is the possibility of their control over the information channels of the state being weakened, they opt to put the reform process on hold.
On the other hand, every reform step being taken is supported by “counter” steps that take into consideration the bureaucracy and other groups in society. Most of the time, these “counter” steps take the form of mere verbal statements, always voiced by the prime minister. Thus, we occasionally hear the prime minister make unexpected and even seemingly anti-reformist remarks. These are made as a result of the policy of balance and generally serve to calm down the nationalist groups.
Additionally, the government implements a different strategy of balance in the face of bureaucratic resistance to its reform policies. In this context, the steps taken are counter-balanced by other steps taken in the other direction. For instance, the detention of dozens of members of the Kurdish Communities Union (KCK), an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), overlaps with the raid on the rooms where the documents with “cosmic” confidentiality are kept at the General Staff. The government, which was criticized for taking a step that cannot be compromised with the Kurdish initiative, was hailed one day later for boldly intervening at the military headquarters where it is suspected there are plans for implementing illegitimate operations. Thus, the political power can clear the path to exercise its politics. It tries to stick to an agenda in which it can implement reforms and which will not weaken its social support. Moreover, it also tries to make the reforms less risky, but at the same time, permanent, by creating addressees within both the Kurds and the military during the reform process.
Efforts to maintain such a complicated balance may sometimes lead to a policy that does not satisfy anyone and that may even discourage success. The AK Party government has not come to that point yet. But the danger exists.
