European analyst Chislett says Turkey’s EU process should not be derailed

“If the EU process is derailed, the democratization process would be considerably reduced. Turkey needs an outside body to drive it,” he said.

Drawing examples from the Spanish experience on the way to the EU, he added that had the Spanish process been derailed, the democratization process would not have been influenced since EU membership was a national goal at all levels of Spanish society.

“There are large elements of the [Turkish] society which are quite happy not to change the status quo, for example, the military, although it is not as monolithic as we Europeans tend to view it,” he said. “If the [main opposition Republican People's Party] CHP cannot agree on constitutional reform as part of the EU process, it would certainly not agree on change without the EU process.”

He also said the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) might not be interested in major reforms even though it keeps the EU process going.

Chislett, who gave a presentation last week titled “From İstanbul to Madrid towards Spanish Presidency” at an event organized by the İstanbul-based Economic Development Foundation (İKV), elaborated on the issue for Monday Talk.

In your presentation, you referred to the idea of how Atatürk would feel about Turkey's EU membership quest if he were alive today, but did not elaborate on that. What do you think about it?

If he were alive today, he would be happy that the negotiations have started but probably disappointed with the way the political class is handling the negotiations.

What do you mean by “political class”?

It means all political parties. Because he was a modernizer, because he looked to Europe as [Spanish philosopher] Jose Ortega y Gasset did and said in 1911 that Spain was the “problem” and Europe the “solution.” You could say if Turkey is the problem, Europe is the solution. It's a coded way of saying, “Through European Union membership, we can become a fully modern society, which means a democratic society as well.” So Atatürk would probably be disappointed by the way the EU process has been handled, particularly by the CHP, the party he founded.

The CHP today is not a CHP that has a positive approach toward Europe. They use the EU negotiation process as a way of getting at the government and trying to win votes away from government. It is also a complex issue because they don't trust the AK Party regarding the issue of secularism.

William Chislett, journalist and analyst A former Financial Times journalist who has written extensively on Spain and Turkey for the Madrid based Elcano Royal Institute, Spain's leading think tank, he is preparing to publish another report soon called “Turkey's Impasse with the EU.” He has written books on Spain, Portugal, Chile, Ecuador, Panama, Finland, El Salvador and Turkey. The Open Society Institute in İstanbul published a paper of his last year comparing Spain and Turkey's EU paths. He was a visiting scholar at Ankara's Bilkent University in November 2003 and at New York University's King Juan Carlos I of Spain Center in April 2005. He has spoken at Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, Chicago, Georgetown, Suffolk and Boğaziçi universities.

Do you think they have legitimate reasons for that?

There may be reasons to be suspicious, but I don't believe the AK Party has a secret agenda. I do see signs of creeping Islamization, subtle and unsubtle signs, for example, taking off the cover story of the scientific magazine (the publication of the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey [TÜBİTAK]) on Darwin. It was restated, but damage was done. Another example would be making it difficult to sell alcohol by putting a high tax on production of wine in Turkey.

Even if this is true, would that be an obstacle for Turkey's EU membership?

If the AK Party decided to go for a secret agenda, the Turks would not stand for it. The Turkish public would put up sufficient opposition against that. This society is sufficiently mature and secularist that anyone who attempts to establish Shariah in Turkey would be committing political suicide. I am not talking about hysterical women protesting on streets but a broad base support. That doesn't mean to say that the government would not try to push various parts of its agenda.

Are there examples of this in Europe?

When Christian Democrat parties were in power in Europe, they tried to pursue their own agenda -- anti-abortion and having large families -- like your prime minister has been encouraging people to have large families, too. Spain has been modernized, but we have a very conservative Catholic hierarchy.

‘Is the CHP really in favor of the EU?’

Socially conservative parties normally have their conservative agendas, but how do you solve the puzzle that the CHP, Atatürk's party, is not supportive of the reforms that are required by the EU in the negotiation process?

You've asked the $24,000 question. I can understand the view of the MHP [Nationalist Movement Party] much more easily than I can understand the view of the CHP because the MHP, after all, is an ultranationalist party, and that's how such parties behave. Every time the AK Party says something the CHP opposes it. So that raises doubts. How much in favor is the CHP of EU membership? If it was really in favor, wouldn't it try and find common ground with the governing party? At the same time, the AK Party, people say, is not interested in major reform. Someone said to me that the AK Party wouldn't like the negotiations to stop but they wouldn't want them to end.

What might be the reason for that, if true?

The turning point for the AK Party was the European Court of Human Rights decision that supported the Turkish Constitutional Court decision that the headscarf couldn't be worn on university campuses. That apparently angered the prime minister. The CHP leadership has to go.

It's a pity that they didn't replace [CHP leader Deniz] Baykal. I can't see the CHP winning an election [with its current autocratic leader].

Do you think Turkey’s EU membership can be achieved without a strong left? You said that Spain had political unity among the left and right.

The left has disappeared, at least from Parliament. But there is no reason for this to affect EU membership. It would be healthy, however, if Turkey had a strong social democrat party, which is what the CHP is supposed to be, but it is not. We should not forget that the CHP is still being monitored by Socialist International over its commitment to the principles of democracy.

‘Turkey’s EU process should not be derailed’

How do you explain the AK Party's success?

One interpretation of the AK Party's success is that people did not find anybody else to vote for. They did vote for other parties but in small numbers. The political class had become discredited and corrupt. The AK Party appeared to be whiter than white, untarnished in 2002. Today they are not perceived with the same sentiment. They are probably perceived as involved in corruption as happens to all political parties after time. But one explanation for their election must be that people probably said, “Finally, a new party.” And they were very clever in using European Union membership as a sort of glue to attract voters. They were the most pro-EU party campaigning in 2002. Why wasn't the CHP campaigning on a pro-EU ticket?

Why do you think it wasn't?

The CHP leadership must have decided that this was not a vote winner. They got it wrong. The AK Party in 2002 obviously got it right that it was a vote winner, and I hope it continues to do so.

You previously said that if the Turkish EU membership process is derailed, it would be disastrous. Why do you think so?

If the EU process is derailed, the democratization process would be considerably reduced. Turkey needs an outside body to drive it. Had the Spanish process been derailed, the democratization process would not have been affected because there was a very strong head of steam behind it. Everyone was interested in it except for dictator General Franco's most ardent supporters, and they counted for nothing after he died in 1975. It's not the case here. There are large elements of the society which are quite happy not to change the status quo, for example, the military, although it is not as monolithic as we Europeans tend to view it. One of the interesting things about the Ergenekon case is that it appears to have exposed different tendencies within the armed forces, Atlanticists, Eurasianists, pro-EU, against EU, etc. If the CHP cannot agree on constitutional reform as part of the EU process, it would certainly not agree on change without the EU process.

Is the Ergenekon investigation creating excitement in Europe as EU officials continue to press Turkey to reduce the military's influence in politics?

This is a democratically elected government, and the judiciary is pursuing people who have allegedly committed crimes. Obviously Turks are more excited than Europeans because this is the first serious attempt to expose the “deep state.” It shows that the government is fulfilling one of its functions, which is it doesn't matter whether you are the military, no matter who you are, everyone is equal before the law. In the past, governments seemed very reluctant to prosecute elements of the military. At the same time, the AK Party appears to be using this case to go after its opponents and intimidate them, detaining people for an excessive amount of time without charging them. We shouldn't view the judiciary as a monolithic Kemalist bloc. There are obviously elements in it which are more democratic minded.