On October 29th one hundred years ago, the Turkish Republic was founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Ataturk was a strong military leader, a reformer and modernizer, and a staunch supporter of women’s rights – but he was not a real democrat. His followers – especially within Turkey’s armed forces – repeatedly interrupted the country’s democratic development over the century since its establishment. While critics today bemoan Turkish Present President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s undermining of democracy, one must recognize that he has many predecessors among the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the generals of the Turkish Army.
From Ataturk to Erdogan, there has long been a strong nationalist strain within Turkish politics. This, together with an authoritarian system of governance, has proved to be a key obstacle in Turkey’s accession negotiations with the European Union (EU). However, this delay has also been welcomed and promoted by many EU member countries. For many, a country with a predominantly Muslim population that lies mostly within Asia no place in a united Europe.
I myself have supported Turkey’s bid to join the EU, but on the occasion of presenting my report to the European Parliament, I encouraged alternative forms of cooperation if membership could not be achieved within few years’ time. It has been clear for several years now that membership is no longer on the table for Turkey. The country is too large, too nationalist, and too adverse to reforms to qualify for membership. Nevertheless, Turkey is and will remain an important neighbor and valuable partner for the EU. Moreover, it is part of a very fragile region and could – someday – play an important role for that region’s stability.
As it pertains to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Turkey has, on occasion, already served as a mediator. However, regarding the conflict – or rather conflicts – between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Turkey has long been a committed and partisan ally of Azerbaijan. Turkey’s long conflict with Armenia and its refusal to accept responsibility for the Armenian genocide at the beginning of the last century prevents it from serving as a good faith mediator in the conflict (see the recent blog by Marylia Hushcha).
Turkey faces similar limitations in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. Although Erdogan previously worked to improve Turkey’s relations with Israel, he was not ready to condemn the brutal attack of Hamas on Israeli civilians. Separate from questions of morality, it would be both wise and helpful for Turkey to help mediate in the conflict by supporting Palestinians while condemning Hamas’ atrocities. However, ideology prevents Erdogan from criticizing a militant group that is close to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Neither, one must admit, has Erdogan been an effective peacemaker on the domestic front. Turkey’s extended domestic conflict with armed Kurdish groups is far from reaching a resolution. Imprisoning as many members of these groups as possible will not result in a lasting peace. It is not the case – as is often misinterpreted in Western media – that Turkey’s Kurds are discriminated against, per se. But the political aspirations of many elected Kurdish politicians, especially in Turkey’s east, are stymied by financial restrictions and accusations of sympathies for or connections with the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Erdogan’s timid efforts some years ago to reach a compromise with Kurdish representatives were stopped when Erdogan no longer needed their support to become president. Moreover, it is not just Kurdish leaders who have been in prison for years; the same is true for many journalists and intellectuals in Turkey. It is not domestic peace that one can observe in Turkey, but simply the absence of war.
Conversely, war is constantly flaring up in Syria, where Erdogan is, on the one hand, protecting areas under the control of opposition groups against the Syrian Army while, on the other, fighting against Kurdish militants. The only Kurds which are not bothered by Erdogan are those in Iraq, who are ruled by the Kurdistan Regional Government. Erdogan is not the only one to blame for the continuation of the various conflicts within Turkey and across its neighborhood. Some Kurdish groups are keen to continue their fight against Turkish civil and military authorities, irrespective of their failure to achieve their stated goal. Both sides require need an outside mediator, but neither is willing to accept a mediation process.
So, is the one-hundred-year anniversary of the Turkish Republic a cause for celebration? Personally, I believe that there are many successes that Turkey can and should be proud of. The country has undergone a significant level of economic development since its founding, even with many continued weaknesses due to Erdogan’s meddling in monetary policy. However, I would contend that Turkey has not lived up to its full potential – either domestically or internationally – as a result of its authoritarian governance and ideological positions. In the interest of stability and peace in the region, Erdogan would have to overcome his fear of open dialogue about political issues and seek a political compromise with Kurdish groups – and perhaps even the PKK. Such a turn would also open new paths for Turkey towards the EU.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IIP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 and then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.