Turkish Politics in a Changing World, consisting of articles written by Keyman and Öniş discusses Turkey’s political process without ignoring the significance of external dynamics. It therefore examines the changes and transformations brought about by Turkey’s modernization and democratization processes under the influence of regional and global developments by paying particular attention to the interactions of local, regional, global agents and dynamics.
Keyman and Öniş put forward the argument that Turkey constitutes an important case for studying alternative modernization paths in the post-9/11 period in which the discourse of “clash of civilizations” – regarding Islam as an antithesis of modernity and liberal democracy – is determinant. On the one hand, they consider Turkey to be successful in establishing an infrastructure of modernity. On the other hand, they emphasize Turkey’s failure in making modernity democracy-oriented and multicultural with a stable and sustainable economy. Yet, in spite of this weakness, Keyman and Öniş assert that Turkey has become an important actor in the post-9/11 world.
Inserting Turkey-European Union relations into their framework, the authors claim that the developments which resulted in the opening of full accession negotiations with Turkey on October 3, 2005 cannot be explained without taking into consideration the increasing importance of Turkey after the September 11 attacks. In this period, as part of its efforts to restructure the Middle East, the US approached Turkey with the aim of presenting it as a model country in the region. With regard to Turkey-European Union relations, the authors also pay attention to the indirect significance of the division that the 2003 Iraqi war triggered among the European Union’s countries. They argue that the future of Turkey-EU relations will depend not only on Turkey’s economic stability and democratization, but also on the European Union’s decision concerning its role and agency in the post-9/11 world. In this context, the authors point out the potential for reciprocal contribution in bilateral relations: while the European Union can help Turkey consolidate its democracy and become a multicultural society, Turkey can contribute to the European Union’s efforts to transform itself into a global actor.
The book draws attention to the AK Party’s emergence as an agent voicing societal demands based on social justice and economic growth in a period in which economic problems such as inequality and social injustice were on the rise due to the exposure of Turkey’s economy to the global market since the 1980s, and the political system was largely characterized by corruption, clientelism and democratic deficiencies. According to Keyman and Öniş, the AK Party’s communitarian-liberal synthesis successfully reconciled “the free market with community values, religious beliefs, societal norms, and local traditions.” Within this framework, they consider the AK Party’s emphasis on urgent economic problems, social justice, and particularly democracy as a fundamental basis for longterm solutions to Turkey’s major problems, as the secrets to its success. As Keyman and Öniş note, these points also constitute the AK Party’s keys to convincing the public that it is a more center-right party than an Islamist one.
As far as the failure of the CHP is concerned, in contrast to the success of the AK Party, the authors indicate that the CHP has made many mistakes. First, it appears oblivious to the economic problems Turkey faces. Second, it remains very dependant on the tradition of Turkish statism. And finally, its behavior toward small and medium-sized enterprises can only be described as lukewarm, and it continually overlooks their demands. Keyman and Öniş also underline the fact that the CHP, ignoring local demands, remains uninterested vis-à-vis the issues of democratic reform and European Union membership.
Keyman and Öniş announce that Turkey should decide either to transform its state-society relations into a democratic form, or to surrender itself to Turkish nationalism. This assessment, which is still valid today, focuses on the fact that there is “a strong societal will and demand for making Turkey an economically stable, democratically governed and culturally pluralist society.” They argue that this “will and demand” emerged as a reaction against the existing political and economical system for the first time in the 1999 national election, which left many parties outside of parliament. This strong reaction became more concrete via the 2002 election which established the saliency of the AK Party as an important domestic agent.
Emphasizing the burgeoning globalization process and the decline of national sovereignty in the post-9/11 period, Keyman and Öniş provide a basis for the rational assessment of actual political developments, such as the “Kurdish move” and the “Armenia move.” Notably, there are some attempts today to consider these kinds of democratic movements as an imposition of the US or other foreign actors. Analyzing Turkey’s political process in the intersection of global and local dynamics can prevent us from such simplifications.
It is also notable that Keyman and Öniş draw attention to the existence of a dilemma confronting the AK Party: “either, it will choose to alienate its core Islamist supporters by choosing to relegate their claims for cultural recognition into the background, or it will face the charge from key segments of the Turkish state and society that it is ultimately an identity-based party and its claim to being a political movement of the center is not a genuine claim.” This consideration can be important for some part of the society, particularly Kemalists / authoritarian elite, with regard to their attitude towards the AK Party. Nevertheless, I think that the party, from the 2002 to today, is faced with a more important dilemma: either, it will adopt and advocate for all claims for cultural recognition and therefore demonstrate that it is an agent aiming at the consolidation of democracy in Turkey, or it will obey the status quo which is state-centric, authoritarian, and nationalistic. It is crucial to define the AK Party’s dilemma in such a manner in order to correctly put Turkey’s actual change and transformation process into words.
