• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
15.05.2006

The future of Turkey’s democratization

   

Artak Shakaryan 

After its defeat at World War I, which was followed by great efforts to establish Republic of Turkey, the Turkish elite, headed by M. Qemal, turned to the West, considering it to be the best way furthering the country’s development. But saying westernization Ankara meant secularity against Islamism and didn’t intend to completely adopt western democracy.

However, lasting cooperation with the west made Ankara take certain steps imitating democracy. In particular in 1950 was introduced multi-party system, but all the processes in the country were under the control of the protector of Ataturk’s precepts, the militants. Each digression was “interpreted” by top militants, which almost acquired strength of law in the society. Each time the militants felt the political situation was getting out of control, a military revolution was conducted in Turkey, restoring normal mode of life outlined by Ataturks.

Today military elite has its so called “red limits” outlining the circles of possible concessions, including Cyprus, Karabakh and Kurdish issues, Islamic movements, etc., the possible danger of violating status quo is accepted very harshly by the leaders of Joint Chiefs of Stuff.

In Turkey’s political life much importance is attached to National Security Council and the decisions made by it leading working process of almost all state circles. The militants were holding majority in the parliament till recently which ensured their active participation in governing the country. However pursuing the EU’s demands Ankara made some changes in the council’s staff reducing the number of militants and adding the number of civil officials.

In general one can state that Ankara’s process of membership to EU brings up a lot of problems for Turkey. The Europeans are more attentive to the developments in Turkey and carefully follow the realization of “Copenhagen political criteria” put forward by them.

Justice and Development party (AKP), which came to power in 2002, with absolute majority in the Parliament hasted to pass EU demanded laws and legal norms. Ankara again made an attempt to cheat the west accepting its demands on the paper but in reality perusing the old mode of action. However since Ankara aims at full membership with Turkey and considers it to be its main political vector, he will have to make concessions to establish democratic norms in the country.

In fact it is advantageous for the present government to adopt some democratic norms. In Turkeys history there have always been struggle between the militants and Islamists. Introducing freedom of speech and religion in Turkey, the Islamists seem to have freed themselves from the militants’ control and gained larger field of action becoming the subject of concern for Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Thus on January 2006 an article written by three authors, two of which used to be militants and one was a colonel of Turkey’s armed forces, was published in the famous journal “Foreign Affairs”. An idea is expressed in the article that though the army has always been the supporter of Turkey’s westernization, however, as a result of present developments, if “red limits” are gone beyond, the army may refuse its role of a supporter of democracy.

* * *

The situation for Ankara is really complicated. Real democracy in Turkey can bring a lot of problems to light. Turkey’s unity is based on brutal force and dread of the military state. And the day when freedom of speech and religion, democratic norms prevail, human rights are protected, and more or less fair laws are passed, the Turkey will maybe survive only a few years as a united country.

First of all here must be taken into account the Kurds who have been demanding freedom for already a hundred years and constitute a thick bulk in Turkey (according to some calculations 12-20% of the population). They have been excluded from the country’s governing circles. Yet one should take into consideration that in spite of Turkish government’s deportation policy, Kurdish element is still densely inhabited in the country’s south-east. However Kurdish parties are not included in the country’s parliament. The reason is the country’s special electoral system, according to which votes cast for the party are divided all over the country, as well as the high electoral threshold of 10%. Thus the Kurdish party with 90% of votes in the given territory can’t have even one deputy seat in the parliament.

After the latest democratic developments in the country the Kurds used their political potential in the elections of local self-governing bodies. Today there are 56 Kurdish mayors in the south-east, which has come to prove the high level of the organized mode of actions.

In general one can say that the Kurds learnt to play by laws of democracy. Maybe under the influence of the western parliamentarians the Kurdish movement has shifted into a new, more efficient level replacing terrorist acts by political struggle and making good use of opportunities provided through negotiation process with the EU. The typical example of it is the latest developments. First of all, in the beginning of the year a conference devoted to the Kurdish issues was held. It is a very interesting occurrence in Turkey, where just a few years ago the Kurds were called “highland Turks”, and for the expression “I am Kurd” people were brought to trial as state betrayers. Under the EU pressure TV programs in Kurdish language were allowed to be broadcasted in Ankara, and the local mayors were so self-confident that were giving live interviews in Kurdish and called into question the standpoint that the Kurdish Workers Party’s was a terroristic organization.

However, the most important event was Kurdish disobedience, which began in March, 2006. This was a new expression of Kurdish movement as the Kurdish part didn’t use fire-arms. On the contrary, it began as a mass demarche of civil disobedience. What could Ankara “who played democracy with the EU” do with the marches of peaceful population. The Kurds made farther steps: they turned to symbolical pictures, which are very important for today’s TV led epoch. Instead of militants the police and the regular army confronted children with stones and bottles in their hands.

However, Ankara doesn’t sit in idleness. The country has shaped an interesting strategy. As it can’t solve Kurdish problem by peaceful “democratic” means, it is necessary to stir military clashes in which Ankara has a big experience, regular army and in case of terroristic acts it will also have the international community’s moral support. And the massages constituting most part of the formal news about “another burst by Kurdish terrorists, military clashes with the police, killed soldiers and police” should be considered in this framework. Most of these are more likely to be stirring steps made by the authorities aiming at involving AKP in the game as well heating the atmosphere in the society making ground for anti-terrorist actions.

* * *

Another matter of concern for the sate and particularly for the militants is the big rise of Islamism in the country. The EU releases “Islamic genie from the bottle” by its laws, who has been corked in it for many years by militants. The Islamic circles felt freer after AKP came into power. Today as a strait jacket for the Islamists is the country’s president A. N. Sezer, who has a right by duty-bound to veto any decision made by the parliament without any grounding of his decision. However this situation can’t last long, as the president’s term of office expires in 2007. Turkey’s president is elected by the parliament, where the Islamists, in the face of AKP, make the majority, and they are more likely to elect as a president the prime minister in the office R. T Erdogan in seven years term. Later on the parliament’s decision will not be hindered and the Islamists mode of action will become more aggressive.

The results of the polls in the society show that Turkey’s inner dissidence becomes deeper, the western part of which is more inclined to Europe and the main eastern vilayets are disposed to the Islamic west. This mass dissidence in the society is of fundamental importance and it can’t be constantly ignored. At the same time, as a result of farther democratization, the growing number of Islamists will take the governing of the country in their hands and will lead Turkey according to their ideology.

In this case the scene of development may be considered Turkey’s new administrative division and its transformation into confederacy with the capital city of Ankara and three equitable subjects- Western Turkey (with the center of Istanbul), Islamic Turkey (with the center of Qonia), Kurdish self-governing (with the center of Diarbekir).

It is obvious that Joint Chiefs of Staff will never voluntarily allow such a line of development. In case the situation gets out of control and permanent pressure by the EU gets stronger the military, in all probability, will carry out another “velvet” revolution, thus alienating the country from the farther democratization but preserving the present mosaic image of Turkey cherished for years.

At the same time, in his steps Ankara goes on taking into consideration Washington, and the present processes in Turkey mainly coincide with Big Middle East project adopted by the Bush administration which aims at democratizing the region and supporting the development of moderate Islam. And although the Joint Stuff can carry out a revolution, now one should take into consideration that the possible failure of the above mentioned project will offer a wide chance for the military.


Return
Another materials of author