Since ‘revolutions’ of various hues became the flavour of the Middle East, Turkey has become part of debates again not only in the West but also in the Arab and the Islamic world. So what makes Turkey important? How Turkey sees the ‘revolutions’? In this short article, first Turkey’s policy toward developments in the region will be analyzed, and then Turkey’s model and regional response to that will be discussed along with future implications.
Since the beginning of demonstrations in Tunisia in December 2010, Turkey has followed closely the developments in the region to respond correctly and, if possible, guide indirectly towards a right direction that lets democratic regimes flourish. When Tunisian Jasmine Revolution was under way, Turkey kept a low profile as many states did in the world but indicated that it is ready to help in transformation and voiced that Tunisian leaders should listen people.
However, when demonstrations broke out in Egypt, Turkey took a very strong position and asked Hosni Mubarak to leave. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a statement to Turkish Parliament made an emotional appeal to the Egyptian leader, saying “We are all mortal and we must listen our people”. He advised Mubarak to respond to the Egyptian people’s demands to change the political regime. And went on to urge him to step down and establish an interim authority that would drive the country to a "genuine democratic" change.
It was considered, and somewhat unexpected, by many as a very strong statement given the fact that promotion of democracy has never been a part of Turkey’s official discourse. It has its own problems such as the Kurdish imbroglio that undermine its democracy. But fact of the matter the flip-side has not hindered its onward democracy march and has made significant strides in terms of democratization since 2002. So much so, it will be fair to interpret Erdogan’s appeal (to Mubarak) as part of Ankara’s increasing self-confidence vis-à-vis its democracy moorings. It also signals the broad contours of Turkey’s approach to global politics and ‘soft’ promotion of democracy in the region.
Second, Erdogan’s call for Mubarak to step down was the first European reaction to developments in Egypt. This was acknowledged and appreciated by the West and also by the people in the Arab world. Former prime minister of Belgium and current Liberal Group Chairman in the European Parliament Guy Verhofstadt put the appreciation on record when he said “Erdogan is the only one who told Mubarak that democracy meant change and that it is now time for Mubarak to go”. Some commentators said Erdogan has taught a democracy lesson to Europe.
However, Erdogan’s call was not received well by the Arab leaders in general and Egyptian leadership in particular. Egypt. Foreign Minister Ahmad Abul Gheit in a letter to his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu expressed dismay at Erdogan’s advisory and termed it as interference in Egypt’s internal affairs. ‘His (Turkish Premier’s) remarks could aggravate our domestic situation’. The letter raised the prospects of Egypt-Turkey relations coming under strain but there was not only relief but Ankara also felt vindicated when President Mubarak bowed out of Cairo.
The developments in Libya have however placed Turkey in a piquant situation, not in terms of principles though. More than 25 thousands people from Turkey are living in the Qaddhafi land. Many Turkish companies are operating especially in construction field in all over the Libya. Understandably therefore, Turkey still has not taken a strong position against the Libyan leader and is busy evacuating its citizens from the troubled country. It has advised the Libyan leadership not to use state power against the opposition. In a manner of speaking, Turkish position is in sync with the international community – from China to India and the US of America, which, in the initial stages, was trying to understand what was going on the ground and was simultaneously busy evacuating their people.
As situation is becoming clear and the international community is mobilizing against Qaddafi’s brutality, Turkey is likely to take a strong pro-democracy position. For example, should NATO be involved eventually, Turkey will be one of the key countries in deciding the kind of NATO involvement in Libya. It seems that Turkey prefers NATO involvement only for humanitarian purposes and not the type of direct military involvement seen in Kosovo.
If other allies prefer a Kosovan type of involvement –direct regime change and toppling Qaddafi- , it may be difficult to get support of Ankara. It is possible that Turkey may consider exercising its veto right in NATO. This is basically for two reasons. First, Turkish government is strongly against foreign involvement in principle, from Iraq to Darfur, and considers it as not useful. Second, Turkey does not want to be seen at the frontline in toppling Qaddafi militarily, fearing a possible danger to its people still left in Libya and also to protect its economic relations. These reservations may however not stand in the way of extending full support along with international community to the creation of democratic Libya.
Changes in the Middle East have also opened a debate whether Turkey could be model for newly emerging regimes. Both in the West and in the region, there is an immense interest, debate and comparison, whether or not Turkey could be a model. Conceptually speaking, Islamists, the West and Arab streets see merit in the Turkish model for variety of different reasons. Islamists see the example of AKP as a way of coming to power though elections, the West sees Turkey as a successful mix of Islam and democracy, modernization and secularism. For the people in the Arab streets Turkey is a model of economic development, dignity, job creation, public service and welfare.
Whatever be the reasons for advocating Turkey’s model, the fact remains it is an inspiration in building the new Arab world. So, it is obvious that in the days ahead importance of Turkey will increase in the region. Diversity of perspectives on Turkey also indicates the multiple facets of Turkish model, and it’s a real indication of Turkey’s own complexity both at domestic and international levels.
Frankly the debate on relevance or adoptability of Turkey’s model is not a new one; it has been there but after the Jasmine revolution, the debate has become intense. For example, in Cairo, members of the Muslim Brotherhood are seeking to understand AK Party to draw a hurried road map as Egypt is ushering in a process of democratization. Tunisian Islamic Movement leader Rasheed Gannusi has openly declared that they are much closer to AKP than Iran. Similar declarations are also coming from Egypt. Abou Elela Mady, who broke away from the Brotherhood in the 1990s, likens the ideology of his new party to that of Turkey’s ruling Party.
Despite its conservative roots AKP appeals to a wider electorate including more secular middle class elements in the Turkey society and this is what makes it an attractive case study.
–-Mehmet Ozkan, a Doctorial Candidate at the Sevilla University, Spain
