Somehow I find these elections comparable to Turkey’s road to the EU. On the road itself, there is more to be analyzed rather than the results. That is why the elections’ aftermath will also be the evaluation of the last 5 years which were supposed to be defined as the peak of Turkey’s Europeanization process due to the reforms realized by the AKP government. However, also in the governance period of the AKP, millions of people expressed their fears of the anti-secular movements, and of Turkey becoming another Iran. The presidential elections were the trigger of these demonstrations in major cities like Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir and Samsun that also had thousands of participants from other cities. That is another comparable point of these elections-yet to another case, this time the elections did not take place after an economic crisis. It was the political deadlock, which has been commented on by many actors, both external and internal. These actors did not only express their own disappointments, they also called for disappointments. Their credibility has been questioned, especially the one of the EU.
In 2002, the AKP claimed to be a centrist party, and took advantage of the economic crisis and that the Turkish society was so disappointed in the other previous political parties. It could call for mobilization, and its main goal; the full integration with the EU played an important role in its victory. Since then, many things have changed, with the help of the realized reforms; the negotiations for Turkey’s accession into the EU have started in 2005. Nobody can deny the significant developments in the last years. Yet there are other aspects like the accession negotiations should be open-ended, and the percentage of those being against Turkish membership has not decreased. In addition to all these, Turkey’s disappointment due to the relations with the EU has increased as it is shown by many surveys, Eurobarometer statistics and similar data. Another important question in these 5 years is to what extent the reforms are perceived and accepted by the whole society and if that was not a top-down process. There are also some researches, in the last 2 years, dealing with this topic and coming up with the conclusion that conservatism in Turkey and the expression of national and religious values are on the rise.
In 2007, the elections did not witness many accentuations on the EU, maybe because the road map is not clear at all and maybe they mainly took place to find a solution for the political crisis. The belief in the EU’s hypocrisy has increased; the support in Turkish membership has lately decreased not only in Europe but also in Turkey. Today, comments on Turkey’s internal matters from external actors call for more reactions. The tension in the society after the debate on finding a “religious” president, as stated by Bülent Arınç, the head of Turkish Parliament, has also brought about external actors’ involvement in the debate. However, a significant number of people have criticized the EU’s approach to this problem as being far away from understanding the main issue and not being in compliance with Turkey’s conditions.
Today, there are so many people accusing the EU of being not credible, including the ones who have always supported Turkey’s permanent position in the Western world. A young manager in one of the international companies, in other words, one of Turkey’s global citizens summarizes his disappointments very briefly which concentrate on the “double-standard implementations towards Turkey’s internal politics and/or problems and also in Turkey’s relations with the EU”. I believe, his words do express feelings of so many other people and their perspective on today’s EU politics towards Turkey.
Yet the EU wants to remind its position as the most important stability and “democracy” anchor. Is it going to achieve this by sending the observers like in the case of Congo? And to Turkey, with whom it has started the negotiations for the membership? And for these elections that take place after the most accelerated Europeanization process in Turkey? Isn’t this a paradox?
Many European leaders who give their support to the AKP, which they define as a “Muslim democrat” political party, also use cultural and consequently religious differences while arguing against Turkey’s full membership. And isn’t this another paradox?
I cannot know what the future will bring. I am aware of the fact that politics is a field of social sciences, i.e. you cannot test everything in the labs. Yet, to me, the aftermath is very clear. Some things might be such paradoxes that you just keep asking questions.
here
