By Ozdem Sanberk
Without the popularization of demands for transparent, ethical, and conscientious politics which prioritize humanitarian development, aim to build a balance in the relationship between man and nature, and is capable of protecting the vulnerable segments of society on the basis of power-sharing and participation, paving the way for change in Turkey will be impossible.
Humanity, which is approaching the second decade of the 21st century, is mired in the geopolitical concerns of the past centuries instead of focusing on the ideal of a new world order. Military prowess, spheres of influence, and territorial gains once again occupy the agendas of nation-states. The dynamic of international relations is rapidly shifting from the ideal of a prosperous, just, and liberal world order to the slippery slope of geopolitical rivalries and balance of power politics that marked a large part of 19th and 20th centuries.(*) Suspicion and lack of trust have once again started to prevail over diplomacy.
By contrast, the 21st century was off to a flying start for humanity. The Cold War was over, communism had failed, the Soviet Union dissolved, Germany reunified, and the former Warsaw Pact members started to join NATO and the EU. Ideological warfare between the East and West was settled. The transatlantic world and the world at large, with the exception of the western Balkans and the Caucasus, finally attained stability and began its march toward prosperity. However, against such a backdrop, it was revealed that the military option was still relevant and indeed imperative after the 9/11 attacks and the consequent U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Moreover, Russia’s recent annexation of Crimea as a fait accompli once again blatantly laid bare this reality.
Turkey’s outlook
Turkey entered the 21st century full of hope under the rule of the Justice and Development Party. This political party was attuned to change and was able to carry out significant reforms during its first two terms in power thanks to its strong conservative grassroots. In the meantime, Turkey embarked on an endeavor to realize social and economic development in congruence with the aspirations of the new century for the long-awaited liberal world order, with its humanitarian focus and foundations rooted in a mindset that aims for the expansion of liberties. Based on such a global vision, Turkey took the EU as its guide and started negotiations for full-membership. Ankara pursued a policy of modernization by way of spreading the gains of economic development and individual liberties among those segments of Turkish society which were long deprived of such opportunities.
The collapse of Turkey’s Western option
Turkey’s efforts aimed at EU integration were not supported by the heavy-weights of the Union such as France and Germany. What is more, these two countries pronounced that Turkey was not part of Europe and would therefore never become a full member. They vetoed negotiation chapters, and proposed a privileged partnership instead of full-membership. Such acts basically meant that Turkey was to be locked up in the position of a “buffer state” between Europe and the Middle East and that the gates of Europe were closed to Turkey.[o1] Not only 6 or 12 countries located on the European continent, but the vast majority of them were members of the Union; therefore Turkey was implicitly being left out of any tangible decision-making mechanisms of the West.
Leaning toward the Middle East
Another consequence of Turkey’s exclusion from Europe was its increasing engagement with the Arab World and the Middle East. The ruling party’s conservative background and the Turkish people’s geographical, historical, and emotional attachment with the region accelerated such a process. However, foreign policy is intrinsically related to domestic policy in practice; hence Turkey distanced itself from Western values, and domestic reforms associated with the EU accession process were disrupted as Ankara shifted its foreign policy orientation away from Europe. The agenda for liberal reform was replaced by a roadmap over which the demands and expectations of conservative and religious masses largely prevailed. So long as the Constitution of 1982 remained in force, the “Ankara Criteria” were doomed to an unsatisfactory performance in prioritizing human dignity, social rights, individual liberties, and gender equality. Moreover, values such as respect for minority opinion, transparency, secularism, and justice, which are the essentials of any modern-day administrative system in the West, could not be achieved.
The uncertain atmosphere surrounding Arab revolutions
Another reason why the focus of Turkish foreign policy shifted toward the Middle East was the breakout of the Arab Spring and the subsequent spread of popular revolts to Syria. Turkey initially made a rather accurate strategic diagnosis of the larger picture. It pursued a policy based on trusting in the ability of the wide-spread movement to effect change and transformation in the Middle East. Ankara sided not with dictators, but with the long neglected masses who revolted for their liberty from oppression. However, the radical changes in regional and global political balances that occurred thereafter, and the political quagmire in which the movement eventually arrived, exhausted the validity of such an appropriating policy. The ‘Arab Spring’ deviated from its initial goals especially due to the rise of radical groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq. While Egypt swayed from one dictatorship to another, Iran increased its influence over the region. Turkey could not catch up with the pace of change in a persistent and healthy manner, therefore it had great difficulty in adjusting its policies in accordance with the evolving circumstances.
Security risks
Nevertheless, the bloody stage through which Arab revolutions are passing nowadays in Syria, Egypt, and Libya does not indicate the beginning of the end for such a process of radical change. The changing context in which the Arab world has found itself has reached the point of no return. It was obvious since the beginning that democratic transformation in the Middle East would require a long and painful process, the likes of which will continue to deeply upset balances for years to come, leaving an indelible imprint on Turkey and other states in the region. Therefore, controversies over our Middle East policy will inevitably continue to top our national agenda. If one thing is for certain, it is that the cost of being an influential actor in the Middle East means being obliged to bear the security risks accompanying such a complex task. That is because it is the dictators, rather than people and their elected representatives, who make the final decisions in this region.
Polarization in domestic politics
Turkey currently faces the risk of losing all gains it made during the last 10-15 years in terms of coping with the economic, political, and social necessities of the 21st century, as a result of both challenging external dynamics and domestic polarization coupled with rising tensions among the public. This risk is essentially due to the fact that the Justice and Development Party, their discouragement in the face of the EU’s exclusionist policies notwithstanding, simply brushed aside its former agenda for liberal reforms. However, a more crucial cause for this risk rests in the ruling party’s failure to recognize the fact that political power can only be exercised if it is shared and based on participation in the 21st century. As a matter of fact, neither state administrations nor leaders alone in any country of the world can efficiently manage everything without consulting and sharing power with their citizens in decision-making processes. This is due to the increasingly global character of economic relations, advancements made in IT such as the internet, and the autonomous political power obtained by individuals and groups of individuals separate from their governments as a result of an overall transformation concerning our daily lives and capabilities.(**)
Demand for conscientious politics
Under such circumstances, Turkey’s utmost priority reveals itself as developing an accurate understanding of the world around it, while accommodating the underlying waves of change in order to avoid being driven away to the periphery of the world. The basic condition to achieve this entails putting an end to our domestic quarrels which persistently erode our institutions and deeply paralyze our political life as a whole. Such an imperative became all the more salient after the recent catastrophe which hit Soma, where over 300 Turkish miners lost their lives. Today, Turkey needs to pull itself together quickly, and its people have to act in solidarity. Drafting a new constitution to replace the old one, which was drawn up by the military regime of early 1980s and politically expired long ago, will enable us to catch up with the pace of change which marks the 21st century and will satisfy the needs of an advanced country. Such a scenario is possible only if popular demand presses for transparent, conscientious, and ethical politics that prioritize social rights and humanitarian development, adopt an environment friendly approach, assert the importance of power-sharing and participation, and protect the vulnerable segments of our society. Unfortunately, such a demand is still not common among the masses. Where there is no demand, there is no change. The generation of such a demand interests us all, as its responsibility is placed upon the shoulders of the ruling party, the opposition, civil society, and each and every citizen of Turkey.
No comments:
Post a Comment