Observing Turkey, it is worth remembering that the battle between reformers and the state has been taking place -- along shifting frontlines and with different protagonists -- for over a century. Religion is at the center but it is not the only factor. The Young Turks' rebellion against a moribund regime, which lead to the triumph of modernizer Kemal Ataturk and the establishment of a secular republic, began in 1908. Before that, the Sultan's court was often the setting of great struggles between outward-looking modernizers and what we would today describe as hard-line nationalists.
It is an ironic twist of history that the ideological descendants of the Young Turks are now the reactionary establishment, or the “deep state,” against which the “reformist Islamists” are rebelling. It is as if actors of a set piece exchange their costumes and repeat the play with the necessary variations.
This is all very interesting as an examination of the way in which a country’s politics develop domestically and how they are affected by external factors -- in this case primarily the effort to join the European Union. But perhaps the most important issue today is not so much who the protagonists are but what options they face in order for Turkey to move toward a better future.
It appears that the establishment’s efforts to undermine Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP party have created conditions for further polarization in Turkish society, but at the same time Erdogan’s victory in the elections has weakened the military and its political frontmen, the Republican People’s Party (CHP). The CHP came out of the elections weaker than before, while its pre-electoral rhetoric, based heavily on fear-mongering and xenophobia, boosted support for the even more nationalist Nationalist Action Party (MHP), which gained 14 percent of the vote and a presence in the national assembly. The MHP has signaled that this presence may be used to legitimize the election of a presidential candidate favored by Erdogan’s Islamists.
Instead of appearing chastened by the voters’ verdict on their challenge to the government, Turkey’s military leaders this week repeated their demand that the country’s next president reflect the country’s absolutist, secular constitution. That places the generals and Erdogan on a collision course. Erdogan made clear before the elections that he would not shrink from confrontation (presenting his reform package that includes the election of a president by popular vote rather than by Parliament). He now has no reason to back down. The generals, on the other hand, will have to abdicate their role as defenders of the secular regime if they are the ones who back down. But if they act, they will cause the greatest harm to what they are sworn to protect: Turkey.
Erdogan has shown over the years that he is committed to reforming Turkey so that it can join the European Union, while also relaxing the limits on religious expression within Turkey. The military, which has declared its support for the country’s westward march, now has to decide whether to give up its political role and retire to the barracks so as not to jeopardize Turkey’s eventual EU accession.
The electorate has shown clearly that it is in no mood to allow the generals to continue patronizing the country’s politics. The government has a new mandate and the will to push against the walls set up by the military. Ergodan has also shown greater flexibility than the foreign affairs and defense establishment in dealing with problems such as the Kurdish issue, Cyprus, relations with the United States and the European Union. At the same time, the government has managed to undo the damage of the economic collapse that the secular government of the late Bulent Ecevit and his presidential protégé Ahmet Necdet Sezer caused in early 2001, when the two men had a very nasty clash over the president’s claim that the government was soft on corruption. Aside from telling the military to mind their own affairs, the voters approved of Erdogan’s economic policy as well.
Given the results of the elections, the history of Turkey’s long struggle between greater freedom and authoritarianism, and the absolute need for Ankara to meet the EU’s criteria for the benefit of its own people but also its neighbors, there is no option but for the military to back down and let politics run their course. There is no room for them to maneuver, and any effort to impose their will on the country once again will have disastrous consequences at every level -- political, economic, social and in relation with other countries.
Ataturk himself would have undertaken at any cost to see his country become an integral part of Europe. If allowing a moderate Islamist party to govern Turkey is necessary in order to achieve this, the greatest of strategists most likely would have supported such a party.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
