Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "After the Referendum: Turkey Headed Toward EU Membership"

September 21, 2010 | 6 comments | Print | E-Mail Your Opinion

After the Referendum: Turkey Headed Toward EU Membership

Paul-Robert Lookman: In last week’s referendum, a clear majority of Turkish voters accepted 26 reform proposals to improve democratic rule in Turkey. With a solution of the Kurd and Cyprus issues, this paves the way for Turkey to join the EU. This development should be applauded.

Turkey, a country which since 1962 attempts to join the European Union, is little known and understood in the West. It is unfortunate that the September 12 referendum on a new constitution has generated little interest here. Its result is an important indicator of the path Turkey intends to take, as it moves away from a government dominated by the army toward becoming a Western style democracy. Today, the Turkish military is not subject to civil jurisdiction. And - under pressure from the generals - the judiciary can outlaw any religious or separatist political party that it deems a threat to the military model of a secular state.

In the referendum, organized by the moderate Islamic Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, voters were asked to approve of the option to try the military in civilian courts and to transfer the right to ban political parties to parliament. Erdogan's opponents see in the proposed reforms a hidden agenda to overthrow the secular state established by Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey in 1920 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Although Erdogan is religious, there is no evidence of anti-democratic intentions on his part. On the contrary, most initiatives of the Prime Minister, such as consultations with Kurdish separatists, were far better than the oppressive policies of his more secular predecessors.

Turkey's accession to the European Union merits support. Anchored in the West, the country would be a significant acquisition demographically, as well as in security and in geopolitical terms. This vision however is scarcely shared in Europe. Some objections are based on racism and Islamophobia. Other opposition is better founded: Europe should not compromise on democracy and human rights to allow Turkey’s entry. These concerns are largely appeased by the referendum: 58% of the Turkish electorate voted for the package of 26 constitutional amendments. These provide for an expansion of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts, strengthening of the right to equality, privacy, collective bargaining and child protection, expansion of the jurisdiction of civilian courts over military courts, and abolishment of the immunity of the junta that ruled Turkey following the military coup of 1980.

Despite his success in the referendum, Erdogan's opponents keep insisting that these measures polarize Turkish society. The new appointment procedures would allow the Justice and Development Party (AKP) to acquire control over the judiciary. The fear that the AKP intends to transform Turkey into a radical Islamic state seems unfounded. Erdogan, who was still critical of the EU and NATO as recently as the 1990s, has changed his mind. Today, one should judge him on the basis of what he has achieved since taking office. And that is indeed impressive. In a country with a long tradition of repression and coups, a small revolution has taken place, in a democratic fashion and without causing bloodshed. A system that had been ruled since 1960 by judges and generals, is being reformed by democratic means. The result of the referendum was a boost for the stock market, raising expectations there, based on the assumption that the AKP now has a good chance of winning a third term in 2012.

Turkey is making progress in its foreign policy as well, whether the EU opens the door or not. Traditional rivals like Russia and Iran are particularly pleased with the mediating role Turkey plays in the region. Since the incident with the aid convoy, Turkey has actively championed the Palestinians besieged in Gaza, while keeping its relations with Israel intact. The changes to its democratic and economic governance allow Turkey not only to take steps towards Europe, but also to strengthen its relationships in the Middle East. This is a development that should be welcomed.

But Turkey has still to resolve a number of matters. With 42% of respondents having voted against the reforms, many ideological divisions must still be overcome. The referendum has paved the way for a new constitution, and Prime Minister Erdogan seems determined to push it through parliament during the coming months. To this end, he will have to achieve a consensus on the 26 reform proposals at issue in the referendum, and on political reforms to promote Turkey’s chances of joining the EU. He must also solve the Cyprus issue and grant the Kurds greater rights. These are key challenges for all involved. Reaching a consensus in Turkey has always been difficult, but given the today’s challenges, this task is one of increasing urgency. Europe can stimulate this process by continuing to offer Turkey full membership.

Paul Lookman is a political activist. He writes a blog on international politics in Dutch and English called "Geopolitiek in perspectief."

Related Materials:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

September 21, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (507)

I like this comment! What's this?

I have always believed a Turkey anchored to the West through EU membership is highly desirable. The potential that Turkey could be a major hinge state effectively keeping one foot in Europe and one in the Middle East in such a way as to be a facilitator on many key geopolitical and economic questions is there and certainly ideal.

Yet, I think it bears mentioning that the constitutional changes being made in Turkey are ambiguous. At first glance, the changes are positive in that they appear to embrace Westerns style democratic norms and have pushed the military much more to the sideline as an independent political actor. However, the concentration of power into the hands of the AKP raises its own questions about the sustainability of democracy in Turkey.

I think it possible for Turkey to join the EU, however, two major items make me hesitant to conclude that this will necessarily happen.

1) Several EU members (especially Germany and France which effectively means the core powers of the union) have been less than embracing of Turkey.

2) The issues of Turkey embracing a neo-Ottoman type foreign policy are real. While Turkey is quite evidently not an "Islamist" state as roughly understood by non-experts, Prime Minister Erdogan and his Party do seem to be cut from a rather conservative religious cloth and appear motivated in overturning at least some of the modern state's Kemalist roots. It is difficult to see how this will mesh with a much more secularized, post-modernist Europe where headscarves are being banned in France.

September 22, 2010

Ugur Bozkurt, Student, Bronze Contributor (14)

I like this comment! What's this?

All in all the referendum looks good for the turkish people, with the strengthening of the social weak , but there is nevertheless something nagging about it all.

First, it would have been more democratic, if the referendum would have been splitted in all 26 topics and the voters could have voted for every single topic, what was shrewd of the AKP, namely Erdogan. He so could press also topics through which would have maybe voted against.

The most disturbing in my opinion is the weakening of the military, even if most in the western world maybe think, that that is a good thing. Atatürk instituted the military as the "protectors of democracy" for a good reason, this surely sounds weird, that a coup d*etat of the military is for the protection of a democracy and if i am not mistaken, turkey is the only republic in the world where this has worked so far. People argument that many people died during these actions, but it is always a weighing if its not better to putsch and then instill new elections, than to let slide a state in a civil war, where without doubt the death toll would be much worse. And one must not forget, that the military in Turkey stepped always back after a period and let democratic elections take place.
Now these option will vanish, for the military can now be held responsible in civil court, which as such is very democratic, but not, when the judges are appointed by the president of state, so Abdullah Gül, AKP, and a parliament where the AKP has the majority. The AKP can now handpick judges as they like. Erdogan gave himself a political carte blanche, the controlling factor of the military is gone now. Maybe i am only paranoid, but the next elections are not far away and if the AKP will get a majority again Turkey will be open for some major changes in future, because members of the military arm will think twice in future about critical actions.

September 22, 2010

Gregg Dubow, Self-employed language and intercultural trainer/consultant, Bronze Contributor (12)

I like this comment! What's this?

Thanks for the article Paul.

I am afraid I am not as optimistic as you or Greg. I am all in favor of economic integration and harmonising certain political policies. And the reforms are to be welcomed from a Western point of view. However, there are some concerns:

- The free movement of EU citizens in the EU. We should not underestimate the potential influx of Turks into established diasporas (i.e. Germany) and the cultural effects this may have. Turks will understandably look to utilize those social ties and possibly seek employment in various EU labor markets. Many EU citizens will simply not like that.

- The expansion of EU borders to Iraq. The EU is already diligently working with non EU members on better managing immigration. Nevertheless Iraq is a broken state at the moment with no capacity to control its borders. This would entail considerable EU financial and logistical support as well as pose serious security concerns. I sometimes wonder if the US pro Turkey stance on this issue is not just an attempt to better bridge Iraq to the West in its nation building operations.

- I find it hard to believe that the Turkish military will go quietly into the night. Such a revered institution in some corners of Turkish society (more for its role as the protector of Ataturk's republic and not its abuses over the years) will fight to maintain power. This could have major implications for Turkish politics and stability. The EU must closely watch these developments since they insisted on many of the reforms which will work against the Turkish military. No matter how good intentioned, how often have we seen Western ideals (free trade, financial liberalization, reforms on human rights) imposed on other states with unforeseen and damaging consequences?

I look forward to other comments

September 23, 2010

Paul-Robert Lookman, http://geopolitiek-in-perspectief.blogspot.com/, Platinum Contributor (280)

I like this comment! What's this?

Happy to see some interesting comments.

Greg Randolph Lawson: I appreciate your doubts about “the concentration of power into the hands of the AKP", but suggest that we have faith in the judgment of Turkish voters and give the AKP the benefit of the doubt. As outlined in the article, there is no evidence of anti-democratic intentions on Mr Erdogan’s part. Since he took office he has outperformed his predecessors. And one can debate the quality of “democracy”, even in Western societies. With democrat and republican rule in the US perceived all too similar, I understand there is a move toward a new political party, somewhat more independent from the media, the military industry and the lobbies of other industries. Is that no evidence of too much power concentrated in the hands of traditional US political parties? I feel your reservations concerning Turkey joining the EU may well prompted by the new - assertive and somewhat more independent - stand Turkey adopts towards the US and in NATO.

Ugur Bozkurt: the Western model of democracy is built on separation of powers. The military is an instrument (although I am not deaf to the news about president Obama having had a rough time with the Pentagon lately…), not a power, and accountable under the rule of civilian law. Since the end of WW II that model has worked satisfactorily in Europe. No people of authority in our countries are politically neutral, but our judges usually act professionally and are moreover rotated and/or replaced regularly. Perhaps there are also cultural links to this issue, but these can change.

Gregg Dubow: with the exception of the proverbial minorities, Turks in Europe are usually well integrated in society and appreciated on the labour market and in the economy as a whole. With Turkish economic growth far exceeding that of most European countries, I fear a reverse movement, viz. the remigration of skilled Turks, people whom we will need badly throughout the forseeable future given our demographic development. As regards Iraq bordering Europe, I am convinced that Turkey will take its responsibility. See also the last line in my reply to Mr Lawson. And if the Turkish military will not “go quietly into the night”, then it will have to happen with shall we say some arms twisting, as the trend seems irreversible. Last but not least, rather than institutions such as the World Bank imposing an American style of economy with little social care on developing countries, the EU is not “imposing” harsh rules on candidate members. Turkey is free to join or stay out, but if it is interested to join the family, it must adjust to the ways of the household.

September 25, 2010

Ugur Bozkurt, Student, Bronze Contributor (14)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr.Lookman,

thank you for commenting on my opinion, and you are of course right about the seperation of powers in the western hemisphere of democratic states, but you shouldnt be so assumptious, that our model can serve as a rule model for the whole world, because thats a sure fail, as we can see and experience in Iraq and Afghanistan as the most popular examples. The "export of democracy" as we see fit cant be a solution, we have to take the history and background of other countries into regard before deciding that we are the "working" democracies and the rest of the world are the "non-working" democracies. I once heard a comment of Helmut Schmidt, regarding the issue of judging other countries for their governments, and he said (in regard to Germany and our history in the last 150 years) :
"Who are we, that we judge foreign countries, who are we, that we pass morale judgement on other countries, who gives us the right to do so ? Who gives us the rights to interfere with foreign governments ? "
I am glad, that Turkey is a democracy, but unlike in western governments (as i already pointed out) the military was a protector of democracy there. And i am not really convinced that the judges appointed in future by the AKP will be so neutral like in, lets say, Germany or the US.

Best regards,
Ugur Bozkurt

January 12, 2011

Fintan Hastings, University College Cork (Ireland), Silver Contributor (29)

I like this comment! What's this?

An excellent analysis of a critical juncture in the history of the modern Turkish state. I would agree that there was an unfortunate lack of press coverage of this referendum and its significant for Turkey and for broader Europe.

To its credit, the BBC News website did provide some well written pieces during the campaign, however I believe that the true importance of these constitutional changes will only be acknowledged when they are put to the test.

Turkey is now perhaps closer to Europe than ever before in terms of a clear separation between the military and the civil government and also religion and the state.

However, the major challenge still exists to win the support of public opinion across the continent and convince them of the merits of having Turkey within the European Union. This will require creative efforts to challenge stereotypes and bridge the cultural gap which exists between both Turkey and its fellow European nations.