Civil society will bounce Turkey into EU

On March 29 2009, the Turkish population voted in local elections.  Although the AKP governing party, headed by Prime Minister Erdogan, won by a wide margin, it suffered a significant fall in support.  Falling from 47% at the last general elections, to 39% at these local ones, the AKP has been reported to have taken notice of this warning.

Meanwhile, as American President Barack Obama arrives in Turkey, marking an end to his European visit, controversy has been raised again as to the possibility of Turkey’s full accession to the European Union.  The polemic has seen President Obama backed by Brown and Berlusconi, encouraging full accession, crossed by the Sarkozy-Merkel partnership which strongly opposes it.  Obama cited Europe’s need for a strong Muslim ally, whilst French President Sarkozy announced the matter a purely European one to be dealt with solely by European Union member states.

Professor Emin Fuat Keyman, of Koc University in Istambul, answers questions about the recent elections, their impact on civil society, the Europeanization process, and the Sarkozy-Merkel controversy.

 

What would you say the main issue to influence the March 29 local elections results in Turkey was?

I would say that the main issue surrounding the recent local elections was the global financial crisis and the effect it is having on Turkey, and the Turkish people.  Of particular concern to the Turkish people was the problem of unemployment which is the most visible issue on a day-to-day basis.  Indeed, in the last 4 to 5 months, unemployment has increased from 9-11% to 13-14% officially, although unofficially the figures which are being discussed are as high as 18%.  In areas worst affected by this, the ruling party AKP (“Justice and Development Party”) experienced a drop in support, either losing provinces completely, or still winning them but with much less of a majority than in previous elections.

What other issues were influencing votes?

Two other issues were discussed.  Both surrounded “identity politics”, although individually and geographically they are very different from each other.

The first identity debate was geographically situated in the West, where opposition party CHP (“Republican People’s Party”) gained most of the votes.  Here civil society organisations and citizens are working to maintain a secular system in Turkey.  They are asking the government to stop the increase in “neighbourhood pressure” in Anatolian states and prevent the widening strength of strong social conservatism for which they blame the AKP government.

The second identity debate was surrounding the ethnic identity and the Kurdish question.  The DTP (“Democratic Society Party”), put itself forward as the reference party for the Kurdish population, mainly situated in the  south-east and eastern parts of Turkey.  The party won 8 out of 11 provinces in the election, which clearly shows the importance of identity politics for the Kurds.

As such the three main issues, financial crisis, secularism and the Kurdish question, broadly divided the country into three parts, both in geographical terms and in political party terms.

Do you think the local election results will have an impact on Turkish civil society?  Why?

I think the results should have a strong impact on civil society over the next couple of years.

Indeed, the initial impacts of the results will be on political parties themselves, who will all be looking towards the general elections in 2011.  I predict AKP starting a new period of reform and pro-activism in order to regain those lost votes; CHP should try and gain in strength and widen its electoral support  by addressing new issues of Kurdish and conservative natures; finally DTP, which can no longer be ignored as the defender of the Kurd population, should move towards more practical questions, like that of getting widespread access to clean water, hygiene, medicine, etc.

This political dynamism will automatically awaken civil society which has been less noticeable in the last few years, as political parties will need support of civil society organisations to gain in weight and popularity.

What value would you give this re-awakening of civil society in Turkey?

I predict that this could have an impact on the Europeanization process, as it has become apparent that there is a causality between both phenomena.

My research shows that civil society was very active during the deepening of the Europeanization period from 2002-2006, whereas between 2006-2009 this process was slowed down and civil society activity reflected this.

As such, in the next couple of years, I predict, and indeed hope for, an increase in the Europeanization of Turkey together with civil-society’s re-awakening.  Indeed, both act as anchors in Turkey’s stability and democratization process. 

Insofar as the EU is concerned, how strongly would you measure the Sarkozy-Merkel position against Turkey’s accession?

I personally don’t think it is very important.  Nothing new has been said.

Turkey knows Sarkozy and Merkel’s position on Turkey’s full membership to the EU. 

There are a number of countries, political parties, as well as groups and organisations in every EU country who support Turkey’s full membership.  So, just as Barroso said, what is important right now is to keep full accession negotiations going.  

Turkey will do this, and has to be pushed to be active in the democratic and economic reform process, which is something that is much more important than Sarkozy and Merkel’s ideas. 

Moreover, we do not know where the future of the EU will lie in this extremely strong economic crisis.  Turkey may decide that the EU is not really that crucial for her future, and lose her interest in it.  This is why, what Sarkozy and Merkel say right now is irrelevant.  What is however, is how we are going to overcome the crisis, and what kind of new world order will come out of it.