Gov’t blasts foreign media, rejects a ‘weak government by wishful thinking’

“The ruling Justice and Development Party [AK Party] has realized many reforms in EU-candidate Turkey. Some circles want these reforms to be halted. But we are preparing for an era during which the nation will prevail,” Egemen Bağış, state minister and EU chief negotiator told Sunday’s Zaman, criticizing the British publications’ stand on the Turkish elections. “It is clear that they want a weak government in Turkey,” he added.

He underlined that with a stable and strong government for almost a decade, Turkey has recorded impressive growth in the economy. “Turkey has become Europe’s fastest growing economy. While the EU grew by 1.5 percent on average in 2010, Turkey’s growth rate was 8.9 percent,” Bağış said, underscoring the need for strong governments to sustain this growth until 2023, when the country will celebrate the centennial of the establishment of the Turkish Republic. “My sense is that some countries in Europe wish to slow down Turkey with a divided government,” Bağış stated.

Bağış’s comments were also shared by others in his own party, which was the target of these publications in the last week of the election campaign period. “A growing Turkey does not suit the British or the Germans or the French. They want Turkey to be condemned to coalition governments again. That is the scenario,” AK Party Parliamentary Group Deputy Chairman Suat Kılıç said. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu also said the reason behind the article was some international circles’ uneasiness vis-à-vis Turkey’s path. “However, maybe this [article] shows that Turkey is on the right path,” he underlined.

An editorial column published in the latest edition of The Economist called a vote for the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) “a vote against autocracy.” “The AK Party is all but certain to form the next government. But we would recommend that Turks vote for the CHP. A stronger showing by Mr. [Kemal] Kılıçdaroğlu’s party would both reduce the risks of unilateral changes that would make the constitution worse and give the opposition a fair chance of winning a future election. That would be by far the best guarantee of Turkey’s democracy,” the article said.

The comment has sparked a harsh reaction from the government and led to a debate in Turkey, with many questioning the motives behind the editorial. After a week of debate, the argument that Turkey’s increasing clout during the AK Party government, be it in economic or diplomatic spheres, in the last eight-and-a-half years at the expense of others in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East led some foreign publications to side with the opposition party has become a dominant view in the general public. Turks are pretty independent-minded people and do not like foreigners “nosing around” in their domestic affairs. The criticism of a foreign publication, however, played into the hands of the AK Party during the election campaign, creating unintended results for the editors of The Economist.

“Publications of these sorts used to have an impact on Turkish elections in the past because of the weak position of the country economically and politically. The embattled governments were bashed by the national media quoting critical articles that appeared in the foreign media. The international legitimacy issue was often raised. But this time it is different. We see a more confident Turkey today with a growing economy. Critical publications in foreign media do not hurt the AK Party but strengthen it,” Mehmet Seyfettin Erol, a professor of international relations at the Ankara-based Gazi University, told Sunday’s Zaman. Erol explains that some foreign media outlets have difficulty understanding the changes taking place in the country. “They react with a habitual attitude, hoping to sway elections to the side of one party when in fact the opposite seems to be happening with these publications.

Among commentators there is a general consensus that the magazine’s article is based on groundless arguments. Nazlı Ilıcak, a columnist at the Sabah daily, said claims such as the number of journalists under arrest in Turkey are outnumbering those in China and that the trials of some members of the military on “overblown conspiracy charges” are not based on any evidence are preposterous. “I wonder where the magazine’s editorial board learned about these things other than from rumors?” she asked. Considering the fact the magazine also gave extensive coverage to the AK Party’s achievements, Ilıcak wonders why on earth a Turkish citizen who read about the achievements of the AK Party would vote for the CHP.

Fehmi Koru, a Zaman columnist, wrote: “If they had acted on real concerns and had brought forward sensible reasons [to vote against the AK Party], their calls could have been influential, but the argument suggesting, ‘If the AK Party wins a majority vote, which will enable it to change the Constitution alone, it will be a disaster,’ has no logic behind it. Why should there be fear about such a development that will give us the opportunity to change the pro-coup Constitution years later?” he emphasized. “This magazine [The Economist] is known to have a biased approach. They have always taken positions. I do not think it deserves much attention,” Ali Babacan, deputy prime minister responsible for economic policies, told Sunday’s Zaman.

To the surprise of his own supporters, who are the most nationalist and anti-Western among Turks, CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu expressed his happiness with The Economist’s request, saying the international community understands the true nature of the AK Party. CHP Manisa deputy Şahin Mengü criticized his boss for taking a position with the London-based weekly, saying it was not the UK magazine’s job to tell Turks who to vote for. CHP İzmir deputy Canan Arıtman argued that “the new CHP is a US project.” “This [article] shows cooperation [between the US and CHP]. Otherwise, the CHP leader would express sadness with the support coming from the imperialist and capitalist state. And he should have rejected such support,” she added.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan did not miss the opportunity to capitalize on what many saw as the CHP leader’s “fatal error” on the eve of elections. “An international media institution’s carelessly taking sides to this extent and disseminating propaganda is unfortunate and disrespectful, but it is at the same time very meaningful. We thought that the new leader of the CHP was a project of neo-nationalists and gangs. It turns out that Mr. [Kemal] Kılıçdaroğlu is at the same time a project of international gangs,” Erdoğan said. He also added that “if the journal had said, ‘Vote for the AK Party,’ I would have objected to that, too.”

The Finance Minister Mehmet Şimşek also lined up to fire away at the magazine, saying The Economist “willfully made itself irrelevant and disrespected -- and its line of argument is a complete red herring.” He said it had consciously crossed the line into politics by displaying an overt bias against the AK Party, adding that it is evident that it does not know Turkey and has not kept up with drastically positive changes Turkey has been going through.

The Economist’s piece was followed by the Financial Times editorial later in the week. The opinion piece said “a large win for the AKP would be problematic.” “With the army sidelined, the judiciary less assertive, and EU membership less appealing, a strong opposition is the best hope of holding the AKP in check,” the newspaper wrote. The editorials may have given the ultimate cover to the AK Party for long-held claims that it has been selling out the country’s vital national interests to the West, giving major concessions to foreign companies.

This is not the first time the AK Party has been targeted by UK publications. Last year Britain’s Daily Telegraph ran a story alleging that Erdoğan had accepted a $25 million donation from Iran to fund his party’s campaign for the upcoming elections. Erdoğan sued the daily and won a libel suit filed with a British high court against Daily Telegraph, with the publication ordered to pay 25,000 pounds in damages.

The court ruled that the newspaper’s allegations were not based on concrete evidence and that the story was inaccurate. The paper had to run an apology, saying: “We now accept that we were misinformed and the allegation was untrue. Neither Prime Minister Erdoğan nor his party has negotiated any such deal or accepted any donation of any kind from Iran. We apologise to Prime Minister Erdoğan.” Ankara Sunday’s Zaman