Tag: AKP

  • Look toward Turkey’s economy to understand Erdogan’s re-election

    Look toward Turkey’s economy to understand Erdogan’s re-election

    By Ibrahim Ozturk
    The Daily Star

    Since 2002, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has been governing Turkey with remarkable success in economic terms.

    Indeed, its record is almost unique in Turkey’s modern history, comparable only with the rule of the Democratic Party (DP), which came to power in the 1950s, at the start of multiparty parliamentary democracy in Turkey, and ran the country for a decade.

    The era of DP rule is ingrained in Turkey’s public consciousness as one of phenomenal growth and expanding freedoms. With the mandate it received in the June 12 election, and almost 42 years after the DP was deposed by a military junta, the AKP has emerged to set new benchmarks in Turkey’s development.

    Indeed, unlike the DP’s leader, Adnan Menderes, who was brutally executed following a sham military trial, the AKP’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who will now begin his third term as prime minister, appears to have secured democratic political control of Turkey’s military and bureaucracy. Both institutions’ ability to challenge the results of elections appears at an end.

     

    Turkey’s latest transformation began with the severe economic, political, and social turmoil of 2001, which then-Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit called a “crisis of the Turkish state.” That year marked the last gasp of the authoritarian-bureaucratic regime that emerged in the early 1920s, and that had become so isolated from the public that its legitimacy had evaporated.

     

    Over the years, that system had been captured by self-interested rent-seekers. Tension, and at times open confrontation, between a modernizing elite and ordinary people regarding the nature, function, and design of the state undermined the very capacity to govern. A political pendulum of reform and reaction, and of populist and pragmatic cabinets, weakened the republic for most of its history.

     

    Unlike Japan, for example, with its de facto one-party government for most of the period since 1945, the lifespan of Turkish governments averaged around 14 months between 1960 and 2000. Whereas political stasis supported a development miracle in Japan, the inertia created by Turkey’s self-interested establishment resulted in a discouraged society with unfulfilled expectations.

     

    With much of Turkey’s immediate neighborhood convulsed in revolutionary change and in search of a viable road forward, understanding how the country moved from cronyism to economic dynamism is vitally important.

     

    First, Erdogan’s government has recognized that change can deliver greater stability than inertia, which invariably breaks down chaotically as economic decline and political infighting take hold. Second, Turkey has shown that an external anchor, such as membership in the European Union or pressure from the International Monetary Fund, can be decisive in triggering change and, therefore, in enhancing prosperity.

     

    But the best way to understand what Erdogan’s government has gotten right is to examine what went wrong in the “lost decade” of the 1990s. That decade was characterized by low and unstable growth; low per capita GDP, at around $3,400; dramatically low productivity; an unsustainable fiscal and financial position in both the public and private sectors; average annual inflation of 70 percent for more than two decades; a lack of competitiveness, reflected in 10 percent unemployment; and widespread corruption.

     

    Partly as a result of these factors, Europeans tended to refer to Turkey as “too big, too poor, and too unstable” for full European Union membership.

     

    Weary with crisis, Ecevit’s administration embarked on a comprehensive reform package – spearheaded by Economy Minister Kemal Dervis – that included a flexible exchange-rate system with a dedicated inflation-targeting regime. With this macroeconomic groundwork laid, greater economic, and soon political, stability followed.

     

    In 2003 came the formation of the AKP’s first single-party government, which enthusiastically backed the country’s IMF-based stabilization program. Turkey’s adoption of a road map for full membership in the European Union also created a strong impulse to follow through on painful reforms. Exceptionally favorable economic conditions worldwide at this time no doubt helped significantly, but the real credit must go to a government that stuck to its liberalizing instincts.

     

    This consistency has paid off. From 2002 to 2007, Turkey experienced its longest period of uninterrupted economic growth, which averaged 6-7 percent year on year, while annual inflation plummeted (it now stands at 3.9 percent). Moreover, the economy proved resilient following the global financial crisis, with growth recovering rapidly.

     

    Indeed, annual real GDP rose by 9 percent in 2010. And, despite Turkey’s fast-growing population, per capita GDP has tripled since 2002, reaching $10,500 in 2010. As a result, Turkey is projected to graduate from “middle-income” status and enter to the league of rich countries by 2012.

     

    Not surprisingly, Turkey’s capacity to attract foreign direct investment is now comparable to other fast-growing emerging-market economies. But serious problems remain. The ever-rising current-account deficit (6.8 percent of GDP in 2010) will require a second round of reforms. And unemployment remains stubbornly high, though employment is now more widespread than it has ever been.

     

    For the first time in its modern history, Turkey has not only resisted a serious global economic crisis, but also decoupled itself from the rest of Europe by rebounding strongly in 2010. This economic prowess, together with the government’s “zero problem” foreign policy, have helped make Turkey a leading regional power.

     

    Turkey’s achievements form a case study in successful economic development. The question now is how Turkey will use its rapidly growing economic power.

     

    Ibrahim Ozturk is a professor of economics at Marmara University in Istanbul. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org).

     

    A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on June 18, 2011, on page 7.

     

    Read more:

    (The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

     

  • Political Stakes Are High for Turkey’s Erdogan

    Political Stakes Are High for Turkey’s Erdogan

    Dorian Jones | Istanbul, Turkey

    Sunday’s general election in Turkey resulted in a resounding victory for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party, or AK. But the victory was bittersweet for the prime minister and his party as they fell well short of a two-thirds majority that would enable them to rewrite the nation’s constitution.

    reuters turkey erdogan gul 480 14june2011

    Justice and Development Party supporters are celebrating their party’s win. And the prime minister dropped his usual combative rhetoric to reach out to voters.

    Erdogan said the people gave a message to build the new constitution through consensus and negotiation. That task, however, may not be so easy for Erdogan. He was hoping to win a two-thirds majority of seats in parliament, but now needs a referendum to do so.

    According to Sinan Ulgen of the political research firm Edam, the result has dealt a major blow to Erdogan’s ambitions, namely his desire to take on the role of president.

    “The prime minister had made clear his desire to introduce a U.S.- or French-style presidential system,” said Ulgen. “He views the introduction of a presidential system as way to concentrate even more executive power. With this distribution of seats, it’s clearly very, very difficult to move forward on that.”

    The current office of the president in Turkey is largely ceremonial. Erdogan’s desire is to push ahead with plans to rewrite the constitution with an enhanced role for the presidency and a diminished role for the military.

    But the main opposition People’s Republican Party, or CHP, and some senior members within the prime minister’s own party claim a more powerful presidency would subjugate parliament.

    Political scientist Nuray Mert said Erdogan’s personal ambition may cost the country, especially on the issue of Kurdish rights.

    “It will not promise anything to Kurds,” said Mert. “No more liberties; no more rights; no recognition of Kurdish demands. That’s why there is this big disappointment.”

    Supporters of the country’s pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party, the BDP, had reason to celebrate this week. The party increased its representation in parliament from 20 to 36, taking seats away from Erdogan’s party.

    The BDP is seeking greater Kurdish rights, including more autonomy and education in the Kurdish language. If Erdogan chooses to meet those demands as part of a more liberal constitution, he may find a willing partner with the People’s Republican Party.

    Ulgen of the political research firm Edam explains. “The new leader has adopted a much more liberal approach and therefore going forward, AKP may find a much more constructive counterpart in the Turkish parliament, in order to enact needed constitutional amendments.”

    Observers say Erdogan’s abrasive style, while popular with much of the Turkish electorate, does not lend itself to consensus-building. In fact, his previous effort to introduce a new constitution broke down because of his caustic approach.

    But being short of seats needed to submit a new constitution to a referendum, political scientist Cengiz Aktar said Erdogan may opt to pursue his presidential goals, and limited reforms aimed at pacifying nationalist voters.

    “He may say, ‘I have the majority, I continue to rule according to my views and vision for this country.’ In that case, a modern liberal constitution in Turkey won’t solve the Kurdish conflict,” said Aktar. “As long as the country can’t solve its Kurdish conflict, anything can happen. All stakes are open, and [there are] big, big question marks for Turkey. This is the price to pay.”

    On election day, the Kurdish rebel group, the PKK, which has been fighting the Turkish state since 1984, warned it will intensify its operations if the new government does not immediately take steps to address its demands. The pro-Kurdish BDP also has warned of major civil unrest. Turkey is at a crossroads, and the prime minister appears to have little time to decide which route to take.

    via Political Stakes Are High for Turkey’s Erdogan | Europe | English VOA

  • Is Turkey losing its balancing act in the new Middle East?

    Is Turkey losing its balancing act in the new Middle East?

    Is Turkey losing its balancing act in the new Middle East?

    Posted By Lenore Martin, Joshua W. Walker Thursday, May 26, 2011 – 3:20 PM Share

    tayyip

    President Obama’s Middle East speech last week laid out a policy of support for the growth of democracy and peace in the area. He challenged all the players in the region to support self-determination, equal opportunity, democracy, political and civil rights and religious tolerance. He stated that democracy requires a free press and right to assembly. He called for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders. The President has a clear vision of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

    It is not obvious that the Turkish government could make the same declarations.

    Under the Justice and Development Party (AKP) Turkey is having a tough time adjusting its much heralded foreign policy of “zero problems with neighbors” to the new realities of the Middle East. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu says Turkey wants good relations with the people and regimes of the region. However the people of the Middle East are challenging their own dictators today. Tomorrow they will remember the states that supported the brutality of these regimes. Turkey must therefore realize the soft power they extol in their active diplomacy as a regional leader is not just about trade and diplomacy. It also calls for active support for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

    The AKP came to power with the promise of furthering Turkey’s Western orientation through the EU process. But under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and guidance of Davutoglu for the past eight years, Turkish foreign policy has been turned on its head by prioritizing its Middle Eastern neighbors rather than its traditional allies in the West. Beginning with its rejection of the U.S. request to enter Iraq through its territory in 2003, Turkey surprised many with its newfound independent streak. It built on this anti-Western popularity with Erdogan’s rhetoric at Davos in 2009 and increasingly hostile attitude towards Israel after the 2010 Gaza flotilla incident. This precipitated a honeymoon between Turkey and the Arab world, with Erdogan enjoying the highest popularity of any leader throughout the region. Turkey’s support for a second flotilla to Gaza and its bellicosity towards Israel now stands in noticeable contrast to its silence on attempts by the regimes in Iran and Syria to bury their citizens’ demands for democracy.

    Having misjudged Libya by initially rejecting sanctions and even opposing NATO’s involvement, losing much credibility before changing course, Turkey finds itself in the uncomfortable situation of being a flip-flopping regional power. Now with the ongoing protests and brutal repression by Turkey’s closest “brother” Assad, Ankara once again seems to be sticking to its mantra of “zero problems” even as Syrians die every day. Syria has been the showcase of Turkey’s policy of engagement in the Middle East. Therefore how and with what speed it acts will be consequential for Turkey’s future role in the region. The people of the area will be looking for more than rhetoric. The EU and U.S. have imposed sanctions. Will Turkey too take action?

    Turkey emphasizes its uniqueness as an indigenous Muslim democracy. Yet that democracy was facilitated not by its Middle Eastern neighbors but by its evolution within the community of Western nations. As a G-20 founding member, NATO member, and EU aspirant, Ankara has transformed itself into an international actor, capable of bringing considerable clout and influence to the region precisely because of its Western orientation — and not in spite of it.

    Turkey should use the huge economic, moral, and political capital it has invested in its rapprochement with the Middle East to promote to its neighbors what Turkish citizens have been enjoying for decades — a vibrant democracy that in spite of its imperfections is seen as an example of reform in the region. Ankara can make a difference by publicly and firmly telling Damascus and Tehran to call off their security forces and institute meaningful reforms with tangible economic incentives. Ankara has the most to gain from a transformed Middle East which will increasingly look to Turkey for guidance and leadership.

    The AKP’s confusing policies risk losing not only its credibility in the region as a champion of democracy but also its voice within the community of Western allies. Ankara needs to regain its balance among its neighbors and its allies. Its newfound status as a Middle Eastern power does not have to come at the expense of losing its hard-earned Western credentials.

    Dr. Lenore Martin is the Louise Doherty Wyant Professor at Emmanuel College and Associate of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and the Center for Middle Eastern Studies both at Harvard University.

    Dr. Joshua W. Walker is a postdoctoral fellow at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University and a research fellow at the Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School.

    via Is Turkey losing its balancing act in the new Middle East? by Lenore Martin and Joshua W. Walker | The Middle East Channel.

  • Turkish Lessons, if Any, for Egypt

    Turkish Lessons, if Any, for Egypt

    By Joshua W. Walker

    With the overthrow of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak on Friday after thirty years in power, it appears increasingly likely that the long-outlawed Muslim Brotherhood will gain political clout in whatever new government emerges in Cairo.

    Turkish Lessons for Egypt
    Globe file photo: Supporters of Turkey's Justice and Developpment Party (AKP) waved national and Palestinian flags at a 2009 rally.

    The Brotherhood, suppressed under Mubarak, advocates an “Islamist” agenda, which has alarmed some American analysts worried about the possibility of Egypt turning into a new Iran. But others have argued that the danger posed by the Brotherhood is exaggerated and point to Turkey, where a conservative Muslim party has been in power since 2002, as proof that an Islamic religious movement can coexist with democracy in the Middle East.

    Indeed, Turkey has been cited by many as a model for the whole Arab world as it seeks to cope with the demands of greater democratization, economic prosperity, and political representation.

    But comparisons to Turkey should be approached with caution. Despite their superficial similarities, the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) have little in common, Egypt and Turkey represent different political traditions, and the shape of any possible government in Cairo is unlikely to look much like that in Ankara. The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t look to Turkey for inspiration — and neither should secularists worried about how to contain them.

    The first lesson to internalize is that the AKP, despite rhetoric that to some Western ears may sound similar to the Brotherhood’s, is a far cry from more hard-line groups in the region. The Turkish political vocabulary simply does not provide for such concepts as shariato advance an “Islamist” political agenda, as promoted by groups such as the Brotherhood.

    Turkey’s geo-political traditions also offer checks on extremism that differ from Egypt’s. As the former imperial head of the Middle East, Turkey inherited a legacy of strong institutions personified by the highly visible role of the military. Turkey is also a member of NATO, and has had a privileged geo-strategic value to the West that provides a moderating influence.

    Turkey, unlike Egypt, also has accommodated Islamist groups for decades, which has produced a tradition of Islamic parties playing by the rules that simply does not exist in Egypt. Turkey has experienced four military coups, but since the 1950s has been a multi-party democracy where the military chose to exert its power behind the scenes and allow more conservative Muslim parties to compete as long as civilian politicians abided by the constitutions the military wrote. Attempts to discredit and ban political parties that advocate an explicitly Islamist agenda has kept the AKP committed to Turkey’s secular rules of the political game, and is largely why they have been so successful. The AKP have won every election since its emergence in 2002 as a religious conservative party, whereas the Brotherhood has never played in or by the rules in Egypt — in part because Egyptian authorities moved so aggressively against Islamist parties, leaving them no place in the system.

    Because it must compete, the AKP also speaks to Turks across a much wider range of issues. Today the AKP speaks for a large portion of the Turkish voters who want to see changes made in the approach and character of both their Republic and its international relations toward the West and Israel. With a majority of the Turkish parliament and municipal administrations controlled by the AKP since 2002, the very structure of the secular Turkish Republic is beginning to change. Not through a radical revolution, but rather through an incremental and technical process mandated by the Turkish constitution, something the Brotherhood has never been a part of in Egypt. The AKP draws its strength from its pragmatism not its ideology, a lesson that is often overlooked in the contentious debates about Turkey’s “turn to the East.”

    With the fastest growing and largest economy in the Middle East, Turkey is uniquely placed to play a decisive role in providing incentives for the newly transformed governments and movements of the region. As a longtime ally of the West and new partner of the Middle East, Turkey has been seeking the role of mediator in every available arena including Egypt, Lebanon, and Tunisia. The AKP has been hosting delegations from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood since its arrival to power in Ankara and has boasted of itsmoderating effect. This is something Egypt is nowhere close to doing and on which the Muslim Brotherhood has shown little interest given their dogmatic ideological stance.

    At the end of the day, the AKP is a uniquely Turkish phenomenon unlikely to be repeated. Turkey did not transform itself from a defeated post-Ottoman state led by Ataturk’s military to a flourishing market-democracy overnight — it has been almost a century in the making. Before pundits turn Turkey into a role model for the post-Mubarak Egypt, we should have a better understanding of the very different contexts in which they have arisen.

    Joshua W. Walker is a post-doctoral fellow at the Crown Center at Brandeis University and a research fellow at the Belfer Center at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

    , February 13, 2011


  • “Model partnership” with Turkish blemished by leaks

    “Model partnership” with Turkish blemished by leaks

    By Carsten Hoffmann Nov 30, 2010, 16:09 GMT

    Istanbul – The publication of confidential analyses of US diplomats on the situation in Turkey has badly shaken Ankara’s trust.

    While political leaders of the AKP, the governing Islamic- conservative party knew that some of them were suspect, the critical remarks about Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his policies can be read as great American mistrust and also a large measure of ugliness towards this nation, with which President Barack Obama claims to be nurturing a ‘model partnership’.

    Cables from the US embassy in Ankara, uploaded to the Internet by WikiLeaks, paint a portrait of Turkey in which Islamist advisors and economists are increasingly influential. Erdogan himself gets his information only from an Islamist-coloured press, according to embassy cables.

    He depends upon ‘charisma, instinct and the filtered information of aides who pull plot theories out of the Internet or engage in neo- Ottoman, Islmamist fantasies’.

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, considered by a US government advisor as dangerous owing to his Islamist influence on Erdogan, received only an apology in Washington from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Turkish media reported Tuesday.

    Officially, Ankara brushes it all off. The Turkish Foreign Ministry has, however, set up a panel to assess the growing number of leaked US cables between Ankara and Washington.

    ‘The emperor wears no clothes,’ wrote the leftist-liberal Turkish newspaper Radikal and ran a caricature of an unclothed Uncle Sam who holds up one finger in his typical ‘Uncle Sam Wants You’ gesture but covers his nakedness with the other hand.

    Turkish newspapers term the leak of the documents as earth- shattering.

    However, US diplomats repeatedly determined that there is no alternative to the AKP and Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the present time.

    ‘Tayyip Bey believes in God … but he doesn’t trust him,’ the former US ambassador, in a 2004 cable, quoted an Erdogan aide as having said.

    The leader is termed as distrustful yet fair with those he works with.

    Such remarks will do no domestic political damage to Erdogan. Indeed, according to Radikal, if nothing horrific comes to light, the leaks may turn out to be ‘the best gift of all for the parliamentary elections of 2011’.

    via “Model partnership” with Turkish blemished by leaks (News Feature) – Monsters and Critics.

  • Turkish premier says no secret agenda or intention

    Turkish premier says no secret agenda or intention

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Saturday that they did not have any secret agenda or intention.

    Delivering a speech in the opening of the Institute of Alliance of Civilizations and Fatih Sultan Mehmet Foundation in İstanbul, Erdoğan said that some circles claimed that there was an axis shift in the country, stating that such claims were totally wrong. “Turkey always defended peace and justice,” he said.

    “We have no secret agenda or intention. We are serving peace and justice in the Middle East, Caucasus, Balkans and other regions. Everyone should know that we want peace, tranquility and prosperity in our region,” he said.

    In regard to Turkey’s EU accession process, Erdoğan said that they would continue this process with a great determination.

    Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned, wife of the emir of Qatar, also attended the opening ceremony and delivered a speech.

    Sheikha Mozah said that Prime Minister Erdoğan became the hope of the international community in the east and the west.

    Sheikha Mozah said that she accepted to be included in the Alliance of Civilizations project due to her full confidence in Premier Erdoğan.