The immediate explanation for the rising protests in Turkey can be found in the fierce reaction of the country’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Behind the turbulence lies a much bigger question posed in recent years by the prime minister’s Justice and Development Party (AKP). Where, in Erdogan’s mind, does Turkey sit in the world? Not so long ago, Ankara looked West. Now it has turned East.
Erdogan responded to the disturbance with a public rage that more than matched the anger of those who have occupied Istanbul’s Taksim Square and staged protests in other big cities across the country. The demonstrators have been branded extremists and looters, Turks who drink alcohol have been labelled alcoholics and Twitter has been called a curse on society. The opposition Republican People’s Party, the heir to the secularist tradition of Kemal Ataturk, stands accused by the prime minister of stirring up unrest because of its successive defeats at the ballot box.
Alongside the heavy-handed response of teargas-firing police, the prime minister could scarcely have given a more telling display of the authoritarianism against which the protesters have set their face. [Turkey’s government apologised to injured protesters yesterday and appealed for an end to mass street protests.]
Erdogan has won three elections and, caught in the hubris that comes with a decade in office, has acted as if this puts him beyond the constraints of Turkish democracy. The unease has been gathering for some time. Crackdowns on the press, arrests of political opponents, the increasingly Islamist hue of domestic policies and the suspicion that Erdogan sees no end to his own hold on power have all conspired to stir up disquiet.
It has long been an open secret that the prime minister wants to swap his present post for that of a supercharged presidency. He wants to change the constitution to give effect to the transition.
The ambition creates unease reaching well beyond his political opponents, including, some say, in the office of the current President Abdullah Gul. The irony in Erdogan’s denunciation of protest is inescapable. After a hesitant initial reaction to the Arab uprisings, the Turkish government has cast itself as the champion of freedom in the Middle East. The social networks Erdogan now denounces played a noteworthy role in mobilising opposition to authoritarian rule elsewhere.
The AKP has forged close links with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the energetic Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has promoted the party as the role model for a marriage of Islam and democracy.
Above all, Turkey has been at the forefront of external opposition to the murderous regime of Bashar Al Assad in neighbouring Syria — offering physical, political and moral backing to the opposition forces in their efforts to overturn the Baathists. Erdogan miscalculated, however, in willing a quick end to the Damascus regime. He underestimated the resilience of the pro-Al Assad forces and overestimated the willingness of the US to intervene.
By elevating Turkey as the leading regional — and more recently Sunni — power, the prime minister has raised bigger questions about the country’s strategic direction — Turkey, after all, is a member of Nato and a candidate for the European Union (EU) — and about the depth of his commitment to Ataturk’s secular state. The first years of the AKP government saw Turkey looking West. Erdogan showed admirable willingness to embrace the democratic and judicial reforms required to open the door to accession negotiations with the EU and a necessary toughness with the military who had long conspired against Turkish democracy.
A combination of European (mostly Franco-German) snubs, the troubles in the Eurozone and Turkey’s own economic vibrancy sapped enthusiasm for that course, leading the AKP to recast the country as the pivotal power between East and West. Davutoglu’s mantra — no problems with neighbours — was calculated to underpin this regional authority. The strategy was overtaken by events. In the process, Turkey has begun to look more Islamist and less democratic. Turkey is not Egypt — nor Tunisia, Libya or Syria.
Erdogan has won three elections. And yet he seems to have failed to grasp that the essence of democracy is pluralism. Those who have taken to the streets will have many gripes and grievances, but the message to the prime minister seems clear enough. Modern Turkey wants a modern democracy.
— Financial Times
