After Turkey’s March 30th Local Elections

13 Apr

1486091d-a6c0-3e22-b5fc-da4c4ec6505e b70b5fc4-2171-30b7-a6c8-ccd268771f5b 9ff8efb7-7b83-3c49-9347-2f5b18c51136

 

 

 

            Never in the history of the Turkish republic have municipal elections of the mayors of cities and towns meant so much to the political life of the country as those held on March 30. It is not a sudden turn to localism around the country or in the big cities, although the commercializing of the urban landscape in large Turkish cities, especially Istanbul, is a matter of serious concern to an influential and discontented segment of the citizenry. The primary explanation for this great interest in these local elections, exhibited by a record voter turnout, had to do with an embittered and multi-faceted opposition to the national leadership provided by the Justice and Development Party (AKP), and above all, by its controversially charismatic leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Both the government and the opposition treated these elections as a referendum on the leadership being bestowed upon the country by Erdogan, its stormy prime minister during the past 12 years.

 

            What was surprising about the outcome to most observers was the persisting strength of public support for AKP leadership, reflecting a widely shared approval on the part of ordinary Turks combined with the sense that the main opposition forces, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the National Action Party (MHP), had little to offer the country, and if given the chance to govern would likely plunge the country into recession and chaos, and possibly even collapse. In such an inflamed atmosphere, the AKP received approximately 45% of the vote, up from 39% in the last local elections held in 2009, while the Kemalist Republican People’s Party (CHP) received 28% and the rightest National Action Party (MHP) about 14%. The support of the CHP was mainly concentrated in the large Turkish cities in the West. In the cities of the Turkish East where minorities often dominate, especially Kurds, the CHP turns its back, has no organizational presence, and received less than 1% voter support in such leading cities as Diyarbakir, Van, Sanliurfa. It is a strange anomaly of Turkey that in a country of 77 million the AKP is the only political party that competes for votes throughout the entire country, and seems responsive to the expectations and grievances of all sections and ethnicities.

 

            Looked at differently, the election returns also disclose that 55% of the Turkish public opposes Erdogan and the AKP, and this would suggest that Erdogan’s presumed presidential ambitions might never be realized. In the presidential elections scheduled for this August the winner must poll over 50%, although not necessarily on the first round. Erdogan’s candidacy might still be a possibility, if done with the support, or at least acquiescence, of the current president, Abdullah Gul, and if the Kurds could be persuaded to vote, Erdogan, which is a distinct possibility. As of now, Erdogan has not disclosed his intentions about the presidency or, more generally, his political future. Whatever happens, so long as Erdogan remains active, his presence is likely to be the lightning rod that dominates the Turkish political landscape, and keeps the atmosphere tense.

 

            From an outsider’s perspective this level of reaffirmation of citizen confidence in the AKP and Erdogan seems implausible at first glance. The mainstream international media has been increasingly hostile toward Turkey since 2010 or so, especially contending that his leadership in recent years was slouching toward authoritarian rule. This line of criticism portrayed Erdogan as a Turkish version of Vladimir Putin. This international turn toward a critical view of Erdogan undoubtedly reflected several developments: the deterioration of Turkish-Israeli relations following the Gaza War of 2008-09 culminating in the Mavi Marmara incident the following year in which Israeli commandos killed nine Turks on a Turkish passenger ship carrying humanitarian supplies to beleaguered Gaza in defiance of an Israeli blockade; the Turkish pursuit of a foreign policy line more independent of American priorities, especially in relation to Iran, highlighted by a 2010 Turkish/Brazilian initiative to resolve tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program and followed by a related refusal of Turkey to go along with the Western push in the UN Security Council for intensifying sanctions on Iran; and more recently, with Turkey standing almost alone in the Middle East and the West in its refusal to welcome the 2013 military coup against the Muslim Brotherhood led Egyptian government or to be silent when the new military leadership under General Sisi committed vicious state crimes against those that resisted the efforts of the new regime in Cairo to impose total control over the society after overthrowing the elected Morsi government.

 

            Such Turkish deviations from the Western consensus on regional policy were not really as dramatic or systemic as made to appear. The Turkish Government has long made it clear that restoration of normal diplomatic relations with Israel would be welcomed if Tel Aviv acted reasonably, and accepted responsibility for the Mavi Marmara deaths and lifted its unlawful blockade of Gaza maintained since mid-2007. In relation to Iran, the NATO group has always claimed, as does Turkey, to seek a diplomatic solution, and seemed at one stage even to encourage and welcome the Turkish/Brazilian initiative to find a solution for the storage of Iran’s enriched uranium. Besides, Ankara’s relations with Iran have cooled considerably in light of their opposed positions in Syria. Further, given the bloody record of the post-Morsi leadership in Egypt, the United States and others in the region should by now feel ashamed of their failure to stand up for democratically elected leaders and insist that the Sisi leadership show at least minimal respect for the rule of law and human rights before lavish economic assistance is forthcoming.

 

            Additionally, on a host of other issues Turkey remains solidly in the Western camp, including the controversial deployment of defensive NATO missile systems on its territory, strong opposition to the Assad regime in Syria, provision for over one million Syrian refugees in a form that meets international standards, tendering of crucial and unwavering support for the Syrian rebel insurgency, and participation in the NATO intervention of 2013 in Libya, and even in the controversial NATO operation in Afghanistan. On balance, Turkey in recent years was doing nothing more disruptive of its long-term Western orientation in foreign policy than to behave like an independent sovereign state of rising regional influence and global status. Turkish behavior should have been viewed in Washington and Europe as a positive and natural development in this post-Cold War era, especially if compared with the violent instability, entrenched authoritarianism, and economic stagnancy that continues to prevail throughout most of the Middle East.

 

            Undoubtedly, the domestic realities of Turkey, even ignoring the recent flare ups, seemed likely to weaken Erdogan’s hold on popular support. To begin with, any democratically elected leadership that has been in power for more than a decade has a tendency to make an increasing proportion of its citizenry restless. Furthermore, most political parties to long in control of the government become increasingly susceptible to corrupting temptations. Such extended governance even without scandals generates feelings in the public that it is time for a change. Although in Turkey such a prospect of change is worrisome, as the alternatives to AKP leadership seem so lacking in capacity and vision. It is a definite weakness of Turkey’s political life that there is absent a responsible opposition that could at least elevate the level of policy debate and offer constructive ideas about addressing national policy options. Without such a responsible opposition the body politic of a democratic society is subject to the unhappy choice of relying indefinitely on a single governing party or taking its chances with the irresponsible opposition that may not even be able to manage the economy, much less steer the ship of state through the perilous political waters of the region.

 

            In the background, was a deep seated and uncompromising opposition to the AKP and Erdogan on the part of the old secular establishment that had ruled the country ever since its initial electoral success in 2002. Such sentiments of discontent in Turkey were given a fierce endorsement by the Gezi Park demonstrations of mid-2013, and even more so by the lethal force used in response by the government to maintain public order. Whether these developments did more than strengthen the will and intensify the shrillness of anti-Erdogan forces is hard to say, but the recent electoral results suggest that no serious erosion of pro-AKP support occurred. Erdogan’s abrasive refusal to address the Gezi protests in a respectful and statesmanlike language that sought reconciliation produced widespread critical comment at home and abroad. His initial praise for police tactics also alarmed commentators, and reinforced the impression that Erdogan was insensitive to the abuse inflicted on aroused citizens who were doing nothing more than exercising democratic rights of peaceful protest. It is also relevant to note that the international media was much more critical of Erdogan’s response to Gezi Park than to the far bloodier responses of General Sisi’s regime to peaceful demonstrations of the Muslim Brotherhood in the public squares of Cairo. Also, it should be taken into account, that what started in Gezi Park as a youth movement of environmental protest against the destruction of a heritage site in Istanbul quickly escalated into an anti-Erdogan hate fest, calling for his resignation, if not his head, and savagely attacking the entire economic and political program being pursued by the AKP. Also overlooked by the international media and internal opposition were the several moves toward reconciliation made by Erdogan, including meeting with opposition leaders, accepting a judicial decision as to the future of Gezi Park, and generally, trying, if belatedly to calm the situation and move on.

 

            What followed after Gezi in recent months came as a startling surprise to most outsiders, and seemed far more threatening to the AKP hold on political power: the split between the Hizmet Movement headed by Fetullah Gulen from his unusual command center in rural Pennsylvania and Erdogan. This split dramatically ruptured the unity of the two leading Islamic tendencies in Turkish political and cultural life. Without considering the complexity of what produced this bitter conflict between these two powerful Islamically oriented personalities, it seemed that such an organizational cleavage would gravely weaken the AKP appeal, especially against the background of seemingly rising dissatisfaction that seemed on the increase throughout Turkey in recent years. This dissatisfaction seemed further magnified by the spectacular corruption charges put forward on December 17, 2013, purporting to implicating the highest levels of the Erdogan administration, and inducing four ministers to resign in disgrace. There were additional accusations of major corruption also directed at Erdogan and his son, but the evidence made public so far relies on untrustworthy and possibly fraudulent, and certainly unlawful, surveillance tapes that did not enjoy high credibility.

 

            Assessing the overall leadership of Erdogan is not an easy task. Ever since the AKP came to power Erdogan has been hated by the Turkish secular opposition and adored by his populist followers. In the early years of the AKP administration, Erdogan was cautious, pragmatic, and exceedingly effective in steering the country onto a course of action that involved economic growth, the control of inflation, a pronounced effort to accommodate the European Union’s criteria for membership, control of the armed forces, relative mildness in his personal pronouncements, and a range of regional and extra-regional foreign policy initiatives that won widespread admiration around the world. Despite the electoral mandate and difficulties associated with a resistant bureaucracy that reflected largely CHP and MHP views as to Turkish national policy, it seemed clear to most objective observers that Turkey was under capable leadership impressively pursuing constructive national goals, especially as compared to unfolding events elsewhere in the Middle East.

 

            Yet, the opposition was unwilling to act responsibly, seeming to be only interested in finding reasons to attack the Erdogan administration, and even to generate a crisis of legitimacy that would be conducive to a coup of the kind that had displaced several elected Turkish governments in the past. Talking to secular critics in the early years of AKP governance, there were several lines of response all aggressively hostile: the main one was the suspicion that the real intentions of the AKP was secretly to prepare the ground for making Turkey into ‘a second Iran,’ that is, a governing process reflecting Islamic values and contrary to the secular principles associated with the founding vision of Kemal Ataturk and enshrined in the Turkish constitution; a somewhat less belligerent theme of the AKP critics was to belittle its record of success, which was difficult to deny altogether, as a byproduct of the Turkish effort to satisfy EU requirements for membership or benefitting from the good luck of an economic package that had been bestowed on the country by the IMF and took hold just in time for the AKP to claim credit for a record of sustained economic growth that it didn’t deserve.

 

            As time passed, two things became obvious: first, the Turkish armed forces were not willing, as in the pre-AKP past, to take control of and responsibility for the state, suggesting that the democratically elected AKP was no longer on a collision course with the military as had been a widespread conjecture in the years immediately following their electoral victory in 2002; and secondly, the Turkish citizenry confirmed their support for the AKP in election after election up through the just concluded local elections of 2014, and especially exhibited an expanding base of support for AKP in the 2011 national elections. This trend and the 2011 outcome added to the polarization that reflected the atmosphere of distrust and hostility on both sides of the Turkish political divide. It is true that after 2011 Erdogan often behaved as if intoxicated by political success and the tangible achievements during his time as head of state. The opposition became hysterically alienated, both convinced that they possessed no democratic path by which to displace the AKP from the commanding heights in Turkey and fearful and angry about Erdogan’s more strident and opinionated portended a descent into oppressive rule. Putting the issue in more conceptual terms, Erdogan was becoming more of a populist leader buoyed by the enthusiasm of his political base, interpreting the 2011 electoral mandate from the perspective of majoritarian democracy, that is, without taking into account the views of the opposition, ruling on behalf of the majority rather than exhibiting sensitivity to the interests of the whole of Turkish society.

 

            On the night of the March 30 elections, Erdogan delivered a victory speech from the balcony of his official residence that could be read in either of two ways, and probably should be understood as expressing an unresolved tension in his own mind. Because of some aggressive language directed toward the opposition, especially bitterness toward the tactics and behavior of the Gulen movement, it could be viewed as it was in a NY Times editorial as indicating Erdogan’s thirst for revenge. His words were strong: “We’ll walk into their dens..Now is the time to comb them out, with the law. Why? Because from now on, neither the nation nor we will show tolerance to such networks.” It seemed to suggest that with the elections behind, a purge of Gulen adherents would be carried out with merciless resolve by the Turkish state.

 

            There was a different message also contained in the speech. It was a message of reconciliation and unity, addressed to the whole of the country, and celebrating, rather than bemoaning Turkish diversity. “We have said one nation with Turks, Kurds, Laz, Caucasians, Abkhasians, Bosniaks and Roma people. I love them as a Turk for being a Turk, a Kurd for being a Kurd, or a Laz for being a Laz.” This multiculturalism was reinforced further: “Today..the process of national unity and fraternity won. Not even one person among the 77 million lost, because a cadre that is ready to serve them without any discrimination is in office.” This is a welcome departure from an ethno-nationalist past nurtured by Ataturk in the state-building early phase of modern Turkish history, in which being Turkish overrode non-Turkish ethnic identities, producing discrimination and sometimes severe and dangerous tensions, especially in relation to the large Kurdish minority.

 

            As we look to the Turkish future we can thus see two different dominant scenarios of AKP/Erdogan leadership: the first is to remain in an internal confrontational mode with a combative leadership in Ankara lashing out at all those that disagree with its style and substance; the second is to give meaning to the promise of leadership on behalf of the whole of Turkish society, requiring Erdogan to moderate his rhetoric and to be less publicly opinionated about social life style issues, and to restore a foreign policy approach dedicated to the peaceful settlement of regional conflcts and positive engagement with Africa, the Balkans, and Central Asia. Two starting points for this preferred approach would be a concerted revival of the Kurdish initiative, which seemed quite hopeful a few months ago and a reset on Syria that gave priority to ending the violence and addressing the humanitarian emergency in the country and supported an inclusive diplomacy that tried hard to make Iran part of the solution rather than the core of the problem.

 

            At stake, is the quality of Turkish democracy, which must at once value the procedures of election, but also confirm the importance of constraints on the power of the state via genuine support for the rule of law, freedom of expression in the media, accountability of political leaders, a credible anti-corruption campaign, and a respectful attitude toward the political opposition. In effect, what is being proposed is a move away from the excesses of majoritarian democracy, and toward the implementation of republican ideas of separation of powers and checks and balances. Of course, also, the opposition needs to play its part by desisting from demonizing the leadership, acknowledging the accomplishments of government alongside the mounting of criticisms of its shortcomings, and adhering itself to legal and responsible limits associated with respect to surveillance and the use of social media. Turkey retains the potential to carry a bright torch of hope into the future if it can restore political stability, sustain economic growth, engage with the more democratic trends in the region, and resume a foreign policy that rests on ethical principles and ambitions as well as national interests.

 

            The assessment of the deadly sarin gas incident that killed as many as 1500 people living in the Ghouta neighborhood on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, 2013 has now cast a new dark shadow across the Turkish post-election political scene. Seymour Hersh, a highly respected American investigative journalist, has recently published a devastating account of how the Turkish government facilitated the acquisition of sarin gas by the Al Nusra Front in Syria with the intention of producing a false flag operation in Syria that would cross Obama’s red line relating to chemical weapons, and lead to a devastating American air attack on Syria, and swing the war there back in favor of the anti-Assad insurgency. [See Seymour M Hersh, “The Red Line and the Rat Line,” London Review of Books, April 6, 2014; reinforcing Hersh’s account is an interpretative article by Robert Fisk, an equally prominent journalist, appearing on April 10, 2014 in The Independent with the inflammatory title, “Has Recep Tayyip Erdogan gone from model Middle East ‘strongman’ to tin-pot dictator?”]

 

            This scenario that came perilously close to happening, being aborted at the last minute by the unwelcome realization in the Obama White House that the sarin attack could not be convincingly attributed to the Assad regime. According to Hersh’s analysis Obama shifted course at the last minute when it became clear that the evidence indicated that it was rebel forces, and not the Damascus government, that fired the missiles containing the poison gas into a crowded urban area. Obama reportedly changed course when presented with the revised account of the events on August 21 by the top American military commanders. Both the United States and Turkish Governments have issued sharp denials of the Hersh allegations, and continue to insist that there still are no reasons to doubt that the attack on Ghouta was done by Assad’s forces. Whatever the reality, this controversy has been seized upon by Erdogan’s foes in Turkey to renew their attack on the legitimacy of his leadership. These charges are extremely serious, and if reliably established and do not just fade away, could tip the Turkish balance against Erdogan as an acceptable political leader.       

 

About these ads

8 Responses to “After Turkey’s March 30th Local Elections”

  1. Gene Schulman April 13, 2014 at 9:19 am #

    No comment, except to say very interesting and informative. Registering to follow other comments.

  2. rehmat1 April 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm #

    The results will surely boost Erdogan’s chance to win presidential election in August 2014, if he decided to contest. It has encouraged him to ignore membership to European Union which Turkey has been trying for the last 23 years. The vote of confidence will allow him to carry out Turkey’s independent policy toward Iran.

    Erdogan’s mentor, Turkey’s first Islamist prime minister, professor Necmittem Erbakan in an interview he gave to anti-Islamist Turkish newspaper Today Zaman (published on December 6, 2010), he called Recep Tayyip Erdogan “a Crypto Zionist”.

    “Why on earth did the AK Party give a ‘go ahead’ to the membership of Israel in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and not block membership? Why did the government consent to multi-billion dollars worth of defense contracts with Israeli firms? Erdoğan says ‘one-minute’ to Shimon Peres during Davos but conducts business as usual with Israel. This is hypocrisy,” said Erbakan.

    http://rehmat1.com/2014/04/06/erdogan-no-regime-change-in-turkey/

    • Richard Falk April 14, 2014 at 3:11 pm #

      This is not accurate, and an absurd allegation. Erdogan broke with
      Erbakan because of the latter’s inflexibility a decade earlier..

  3. maggie roberts April 15, 2014 at 1:01 am #

    Once again I am tremendously impressed with your facility of understanding political manouvres. Thank you Richard for educating me on the Turkish situation.

  4. peripamir April 19, 2014 at 2:15 am #

    Richard is finally acknowledging points and positions (more critical of Erdogan and the AKP) that he has for years resisted or denied. Perhaps because the facts are by now too glaringly undeniable and global public opinion almost unanimously united on the question of Erdogan’s degenerating leadership.

    But the fact that he celebrates AKP’s supposedly 46% electoral gain during the last local elections as a popular vote of confidence without saying anything about the massive election fraud that took place is indicative of his continuing reflex and serves to cast doubt on his overall evaluation.

    The thousands of ballot sheets belonging to the two opposition parties found in garbage cans, either burnt or intact and large scale vote rigging led millions, except those close to government circles, to question the validity of these elections in many contested areas. The Guardian described them ironically as “a blow to democracy”. In Ankara the CHP candidate supposedly lost by 1% and will take his case to the Constitutional Court. If elections remain the “last” bastion of democratic expression in a country that has most certainly become an autocratic state under the leadership of a single corrupt individual, then these elections showed that unless they can be strictly monitored, which certainly wasn’t the case this last time, then this method is clearly NOT an accurate reflection of the popular will.

    Why a party which would have won the most votes anyway felt the need to resort to widespread systematic vote rigging is another question. One response is that lying, cheating and stealing have unfortunately become standard features of Erdogan’s style of governance. Another, the AKP was clearly eager to camouflage the drop in votes that was most certainly in store for them following the massive corruption scandals that erupted at the end of last year and the ensuing repressive measures that the Government has resorted to in order to stifle all investigation. The tampered election results were presumably also intended to help buoy Erdogan’s bid for the Presidency or probable next term as PM and to thereby continue to give him protection from legal prosecution regarding the billions of dollars everyone, including his own supporters, knows that he and his henchmen have stolen.

    Whatever good things one may have said about the AKP’s rule in the past, as Richard faithfully reminds us each time, the fact is that Turkey has today ceased, for all intents and purposes, to be a democratic state governed by the rule of law. The list of anti democratic acts and human rights abuses committed by the AKP government, especially since the Gezi uprising of last year but also long before, is far too long to elaborate here. Most dramatically, the Judiciary has been brought under the control of the Minister of Justice and its members are steadily being replaced by pro-AKP sympathizers. The Police Force, which shares responsibility for investigating corruption charges and for repressing government opponents including ordinary civilians protesting repressive measures, is in the process of being similarly purged. The national Intelligence Agency (MIT) has recently been elevated to an “above the Constitution” status. In fact, the ONLY institution which remains to check the Government’s power is the Constitutional Court, which was the last target of Erdogan’s wrath for committing the unforgivable act of lifting the Twitter ban. Turkey still jails the highest number of journalists in the world and is prosecuting hundreds of ordinary civilians simply for using their constitutional right to freedom of assembly and expression. There is no alternative or free media to speak of except for a handful of papers and 2-3 TV channels and, thankfully, the social media whose efforts to inform the public and to call the government to accountability makes Erdogan foam at the mouth.

    The system firmly in place today is one where a megalomaniac is consolidating power and control and distancing himself at a terrifying pace from all forms of democratic governance.

    So rather than celebrating such a person’s entrenchment in power, a more useful enquiry would have been to ask what (apart from the absence of a viable opposition) makes a part of the population continue to back such an unstable character who has most certainly engaged in unlawful actions and who is using politics to escape legal prosecution ? (The last point raised by Richard concerning the Hersh article may well one day bring charges of “crimes against humanity” against Erdogan). What does that say about the fabric of Turkish society, irreconcilably split between those who worship Erdogan and those who are deeply worried by the direction he is taking the country ? And what would his continued stay in power, assisted by future vote rigging and judicial adjustments favoring the position of the majority party, augur for Turkey’s future ?

    • Richard Falk April 21, 2014 at 7:53 am #

      Peri:

      Your inability or unwillingness to see the Turkish reality with both eyes is startling, and
      the tone of your comment is, as ever, patronizing–assuming you know better than anyone else,
      and show no respect for all those in Turkey who currently view the situation differently than
      you do.

      Let me make just a couple of points of the many that could be made. The allegations about rigged
      voting are typically made by losers in close elections, especially if the vote is close as in Ankara,
      and the society is polarized, as in Turkey. What creates a presumption against such claims of ‘stolen
      election’ is that the election outcomes were predicted in several pre-election polls conducted by trustworthy
      polling agencies.

      The contention that there is almost no media opportunities for free discussion in Turkey is deeply puzzling.
      The polarized attacks of the CHP are fully reported on TV, there are frequent panels with various viewpoints,
      there is a barrage of anti-AKP and anti-Erdogan criticism in several of the oldest and most influential newspapers,
      and this now includes Zaman, read throughout the country, and as you suggest, the social media.

      Finally, to keep attacking without offering an alternative and without admitting that the decade of AKP governance
      has been beneficial for many in the country in several crucial economic and political respects, is to close both
      eyes. When I have asked more open-minded secular friends and contacts (especially those who think about the economy
      and class issues) in Turkey why they continue to support the
      AKP in light of the scandals, Erdogan’s troublesome recent political style and conduct, there answer is along the lines
      “Am I stupid?” (meaning that despite all the deficiencies Turkey is better off with this leadership than whatever
      else is on the political horizon).

      I know you care deeply, but for discussion to be useful, it would be helpful to try to understand why so many others
      see differently than you do. As for the international turn against Erdogan and the AKP, it is partly explained by the
      tensions with Israel since 2010 and the more independent foreign policy line of Turkey, especially in relation to Iran.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Richard Falk: After Turkey’s March 30th Local Elections - Guernica / A Magazine of Art & Politics - April 15, 2014

    […] By Richard Falk By arrangement with Richard Falk […]

  2. 2014 Turkish Municipal Elections: Alternative Explanations of Government Support (I) | The Vizier's Inn - April 17, 2014

    […] After Turkey’s March 30th Local Elections […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 10,101 other followers

%d bloggers like this: