|
|
July, 2012 | |
Turkey:
Not a Leader for Democracy in the Middle East
The
Turkish foreign policy elite have updated the country’s foreign policy
vision for the Middle East: Turkey will now promote democracy and human
rights there. While this is a lofty objective, Turkey is both
intellectually and politically ill-equipped for it. Until
the advent of the Arab Spring, Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (JDP)
followed a “zero problems” policy towards its neighbors in the region.
Turkey’s dynamic economy (17th largest in the world) and pro-Palestinian
stance, combined with the JDP leaders’ overt religiosity and the
popularity of Turkish soap operas, made Turkey a power to be reckoned with
in the Middle East. Buoyed by this success, Turkey began attempting, with
varying success, to solve its decades-old regional issues. Until
recently, Turkish leaders had not hesitated to cozy up to Middle Eastern
autocrats as a way to pursue better relations. The Arab Spring changed all
of that, and forced Turkey to side with the streets against the palaces
and shelve its “zero problems” policy. Turkey’s
new foreign policy framework responds to the conundrum presented by the
popular uprisings throughout the region by altering its focus. In a recent
policy brief published for the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs’
Center For Strategic Research, Tarık Oğuzlu calls the new
approach “Version 2.0 of Turkey’s ‘Zero Problems With Neighbors’
policy.” He argues that, driven mostly by normative and humanitarian
concerns, Turkey will now strive to have zero problems not necessarily
with the governments of neighboring countries but with its people. Oğuzlu
hopes that “the years ahead will witness a ‘democratic touch’ in
Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East, reflecting the spirit of
Turkey’s liberal democratization process already underway at home.” Moreover,
in a separate policy brief published in April, Foreign Minister Ahmet
Davutoğlu details what he calls ‘Turkey’s vision-oriented foreign
policy.’ He elaborates: “we will not keep silent on oppression by
autocratic leaders and will act in tandem with the international community
to end it”; “we will not take steps that will alienate us from the
hearts and minds of our region’s people;” and “we will work towards
the establishment of a more peaceful and prosperous regional order and
support people’s quest for basic human rights and democracy.” However,
Turkey lacks the intellectual and political capital necessary to promote
human rights and democracy in the region. Unlike the “zero problems”
policy which Turkey earlier relied on its economic power, Version 2.0,
would have Turkey rely on soft power. Harnessing the power of persuasion
requires in-depth knowledge of the complexities of Middle East politics.
The Turkish elite’s post-Ottoman neglect of the region and its later
reliance on the Cold War categorizations has left Turkey ill-equipped to
know the region’s peoples, histories, and true concerns. Apart from
those who learn classical Arabic for religious reasons, few Turkish
intellectuals understand Arabic, with the overwhelming majority relying
exclusively on Anglo-American sources for information on the Middle East. Ideological
certainties have often substituted for critical scholarship when it comes
to the Middle East. Salvaging Western writings for ideological ammunition,
Turkish secularists quickly attribute the region’s problems to its lack
of an Atatürk, while pro-Islamic conservatives (and leftists) blame
Western imperialism for troubles in the Middle East. What’s worse, a
wide range of Turkish society enjoys Arab countries’ troubles as these
are seen as divine retribution for the Arab revolts against the Ottoman
Empire. Turkish
foreign policy think tanks, which have mushroomed in the country under the
JDP’s rule, offer little help in correcting these flaws. Many bought
into the JDP’s grandiose image of Turkey’s regional leadership, and
for the most part, have quickly given credit to the government for foreign
policy successes and blamed external factors for any failures. Without a
serious critical self-reflection and analysis of the region, Turkey will
not be able to lead the region to democracy and human rights. If
that wasn’t enough, Turkey’s own democratic and human rights
shortcomings offer an even bigger reason for why it is ill-equipped for
such a role. Admittedly, since coming to power in 2002, the government has
improved many aspects of Turkish democracy, such as civilian control over
the army and the expansion of Kurdish rights—but these are not enough.
Additional legitimate Kurdish demands continue to fall on deaf ears. The
216th Article of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), which bans “fomenting
hatred and enmity among the public” and “insulting religious
values,” continue to be used to silence dissidents and critics of Islam.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in its 2012 Annual
Report controversially categorized Turkey as a “Country of Particular
Concern” for religious freedom, a category reserved for the worst. International
assessments of Turkish democracy and human rights reveal a disturbing
picture. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2011 Democracy Index ranks
Turkey 88th out of 167 countries, while the Global Economic Forum’s 2011
Global Gender Gap Index ranks Turkey as 122nd out of 135 countries.
According to Freedom House, while political rights and civil liberties in
Turkey improved under the JDP, Turkey is still a partially free country.
These rankings are not indicators for a promoter of democracy and human
rights. Turkey is just not in a position to credibly portray itself as a
regional leader on these issues. This
is not to say that Turkey cannot eventually show leadership in enhancing
democracy and promoting human rights in the region. Such leadership is
deeply needed and Turks have much to offer in terms of moderation,
modernization and secularization, if not outright democratization.
However, foreign policy elites should heed Atatürk’s famous dictum,
which is paraphrased as: “democracy at home; democracy in the world.”
Putting one’s house in order should precede promoting democracy and
human rights abroad. *The
above article first appeared in “Al-Arabia News”, from where is reprinted in Patrides. |