What's Happening in Turkey?

by Burak Kahraman

Starting from May 28, 2013, over 200 demonstrations took place in 67 cities of Turkey.  Five people died, tens lost their eye-sight, and thousands were injured after the disproportionate response of the police.  While this abuse of police force was not something new in Turkey, the number of supporters and participants in the recent demonstrations reached a record-level. So why did millions pour into the streets? The answer is that the last drop of patience regarding Prime Minister R. T. Erdogan and the AKP rule, dried out. Next, I will briefly explain the reasons for the uprising by referring to some of the policies that generated it.

First of all, in the past eleven years, PM Erdogan  has deconstructed all the institutions that could stand against him, such as justice, military, education, business world and mainstream media by introducing new laws, reassigning his supporters into high state positions, by arresting journalists, generals and activists. He has built an AKP empire where businessmen standing close to him have become richer and penalties of criminals standing close to him have been eased. On the other hand, life became increasingly difficult for the opponents. Journalists have been arrested, businessmen have been threatened, media have been silenced.

Secondly, Erdogan is a religious leader and his Islamist renovations started to bother non-religious populations who view the newly introduced laws as intrusive for their life styles. Restriction of alcohol sale, banning of many websites (including the pornographic ones), as well as public statements regarding expected fertility (that the PM would like each family to have at least three children) and youth values (that he aspires to a more conservative young generation) were seen as constraining individual freedoms.

Another policy of the Prime Minister that annoyed a large segment of the population was his denigration of Kemal Ataturk and his revolutions. Ataturk established the secular Turkish Republic by replacing Ottoman sultanate, which was ruled by Islamic laws. Erdogan  stated: “why shouldn’t parts of Quran influence the constitution while constitution that some drunken guys wrote years ago is considered as appropriate?“, referring to Ataturk and his ministers, thus reasonably enraging the secularist part of the Turkish society. 

After being elected in democratic ways, the Prime Minister has ruled as the ultimate leader of the country and has neglected his opponents’ criticism and demands.. PM Erdogan has indicated that he took permission of whatever he does from the nation in the elections. This mentality, neglecting the half of the population, gradually frustrated and radicalized non-AKP supporters 

The final pretext that made people start the recent uprising was the decision to destroy the only central park of Istanbul, Gezipark. The government’s plan was to rebuild ‘Topcu Barrack” which was torn down by Ataturk’s government. It was a symbol of Ottoman’s Islamist regime. He also wanted to build a mall and a mosque there. He stated “I don’t need to ask permission from the opponent parties and some looters for this”. In that way, he referred to protestors (mostly coming from the Turkish middle class) as looters and vandals.

In the morning of the 29^th of May, about a hundred protestors in the effort to protect Gezipark were faced with a brutal police attack. In the next days, police kept attacking, Erdogan kept his neglecting manner and mainstream media kept hiding the events. Because of these reasons the number of protestors increased from a hundred to millions in just a couple of days throughout Turkey.

Erdogan’s policy against the Gezipark Resistance may have been the most formidable one. Instead of trying to appease people, he tried to polarize the country, stating: “I can hardly hold my own 50% at their homes”. This sounded to opponents almost like a call for a civil war. The basic reason for this stance was to protect his electoral power. Turkey’s societal structure is not suitable for Erdogan to collect more/new votes given the unyieldingly secular background of the opponent part of the electorate. So, the Prime Minister tried to protect what he already has, by pointing out the protesters as traitors.

The PM largely succeeded in that. This resulted in an unpleasant atmosphere in Turkey where, for the first time in the republic’s history, polarization of the society is quite obvious; a polarization between the AKP supporters and the non-AKP ones. However, at the same time, the Gezipark events unintentionally created a new social unity.  This unity formed by non-AKP supporters consists of very different groups that one could never imagine together. For the first time in the history of the republic, “left-wingers”, “right-wingers”, Turkish nationalists, Kurdish nationalists, anti-capitalist Muslims stood together against this threat towards freedom.

Burak Kahraman is a musician & film maker and holds an MA in Composing for Film and TV Programme from Kingston University

Is it Possible that a Protest Could Take Down Powerful Erdogan and Provoke a Significant Change in the Iinternal and Foreign Policy of Turkey?

by Nikos Karavasilis

When the Turkish government decided to build a commercial center in the area of Gezi Park, surely it did not expect the consequences and developments that followed. A small and peaceful protest, in a matter of days, turned into an assertive movement of continuous occupation of the Taksim square. The undisguised violence used by the Turkish police after the demand of “zero tolerance” from Prime Minister Erdogan, intensified public reactions, resulting in many injuries and deaths.

Since 2002, Erdogan has led the country and within these years Turkey has made important steps of progress and democratization. One can hardly deny that Erdogan is the most important Turkish politician after Kemal Ataturk as well as the great economic power that his policies endowed to the country. But in the last years a certain fatigue has been observed regarding structural reforms while. Moreover, the government has taken decisions that increasingly limit the liberties of the civilians and intervene in their daily life, as for example the prohibition of kissing in public and the limitations in the consumption of alcohol. The return to the Islamic past is now obvious.

The Turkish opposition parties, which were constrained to very low rates because of Erdogan’s “glory and splendor”, and due to the authoritarian behavior of his government, see now their role being upgraded. Furthermore, the Turkish prime minister announced his intention to hold a referendum on the park Gezi issue. In the case that the result is negative for his policy and in combination with the upgraded dynamics of the opposition, the political scene in Turkey might change radically. It is also possible that the opposition demands early elections, a fact that could cause unrest in the current conjuncture.

On the other hand, if the Turkish government does not effectively handle the current crisis, this will probably result in an even greater turmoil, which might give the opportunity to the army to intervene, and also to ethnic and religious groups (such as the Kurds and the  Alewites), to persistently claim their demands. Any turmoil in the interior could significantly affect the foreign policy and the economy of the country thus causing a serious blow to the public image of Erdogan that largely rely on the growth of the economy,

The foreign policy of a country is directly affected by the internal developments. Following that rule, , in Turkey the facts that beset its society have an impact on its foreign policy. First of all, the European Union strongly expressed its dissatisfaction for Erdogan’s practices, who cynically answered that the EU should take care of Greece and not of Turkey and also stated that he does not recognize the authority of the European Parliament. Such statements, spoken by a candidate state for EU accession , are obviously unusual. Lately, the anti-European statements from Turkey are increasingly multiplied, especially because of the non-attribution of a specific accession date and due to the turn of Turkey to the Islamic world.

Moreover, even the relations with the United States of America have been damaged. It is clear that Turkeys efforts to become a regional leader, does not seem a good idea for the US or to their close ally Israel, which demands also the same role in the area. Their relations are being more damaged due to the current events that are criticized by the American government and raise deep concerns about the restrictions of the freedom of expression in Turkey. Erdogan sees that slowly, his former allies are opposing to his policies. It is not a coincidence that regarding the Syrian crisis, Turkey turned out to be the only country demanding a military intervention, because there was no support from other countries and as a result Turkey was obliged to change its stance demanding now, a political solution.

So, we can see how a minor issue –the cutting down of some trees in a public square- might become a threat for a government; how its reaction to a series of bloody protests  can affect the international relations and the foreign policy of the country. Erdogan is now called upon to find the solution that will satisfy the public opinion, without showing that he is falling back – while maintaining the leading and decisive profile he demonstrates- and at the same time addressing concerns of the international community, which seems to be very worried of his domestic policies and the steps of “Islamization” that he takes. 

Nikos Karavasilis has recently graduated from the Department of International & European Studies at the University of Piraeus

To Vote or not to Vote?

 

Ireland: an example to follow?

by Naya Koulocheri

Between mid-90s and 2002 Ireland’s economic growth was considered a miracle. Banks predicted a continuing growth; liquidity in real economy caused a construction boom, making housing market the main driving force for the growth in GDP. However, in 2008, when the US crisis broke out, the Irish economy got affected in two ways: many investment projects lost their market value and since global demand decreased, the Irish exports started shrinking. The economic downturn caused a fiscal imbalance, increasing the public deficit- in less than two years- from 3% to 12%.  In 2010, Ireland adopted a bailout package from EU, IMF and the European Commission. In 2012, it achieved partial access to bonds market and it is expected to make a full return at the end of 2013. But, does the future of Ireland look that bright as it seems?

The bailout package in Ireland included tax rises, wage cuts for public sector, banking sector reforms, government spending cuts and structural reforms. The first results of this policy were encouraging. That is why after Irish Prime Minster Enda Kenny’s visit in Athens, his Greek counterpart Antonis Samaras made clear that Ireland is a successful example of austerity policy applied in euro area. There are plans to raise 10 billion Euros by issuing bonds in 2013, giving the possibility for the Irish government to fund its needs for the 2014. Along with the partial access to bonds market, Irish economy has grown by 0.4% in 2012. Numbers speak differently when we compare this with Greece, where, according to OECD, the five-year recession will continue for the 2014, as well with other southern countries: Spain, Italy and Portugal.  The supporters of the “Irish example” see in today’s upturn that Ireland has restored its competitiveness and that the corporate tax rate of 12.5% has facilitated the attraction of Foreign Direct Investments, most of them coming from the US. But, there is, also a point of balance because the boost of the GDP is based on two things: FDI projects and the amount of exports, which exceeds the total value of GDP.

Even if we admit the success of the Irish rescue plan, there are reasons to believe that it is difficult to imitate. The total share of exports in Irish output is reaching 67%, but, the most important figure is that 22% of the Irish exports go to America, an economy that seems to have limited the impact of the recent crisis and started to recover. At the same time, Ireland remains one of the biggest exporters of pharmaceuticals in the world (28% of total exports). On the other hand, Spanish exports represent only 23% of GDP and the largest export market is France that- like almost all European states- is trying to gain financial stability. The problem emerges by the fact that the target of EU member-states exports is the internal market, which, at the time, is fighting against the same danger: deep economic recession.

There are, also, those who refuse to recognize the success of the “Irish model” for several reasons[1]. The first reason is that the domestic demand is still weak. The measure used for the Irish progress is GDP, but because of the significant amount of transfers of foreign capital to other countries, the most appropriate measure would be the GNP, the income the goes to residents. The GNP is lower than GDP, something which means that the financial upturn is not reflected in real economy and that there will be, at some point, some fiscal imbalance, since –due to low corporate taxes- the only way to limit the damage in public finance will be through further taxation on residents. The second reason is that Irish economy is still susceptible to world trade changes given the fact that exports contribute significantly to its economic growth. The third reason is that Ireland’s rhythm of increase in exports has slowed down, since 2010. Last one, Ireland is vulnerable to shocks affecting specific sectors, for example pharmaceuticals (28% of total exports) or organic chemicals (21%).  

Apparently, Ireland has made progress towards economic growth, fiscal consolidation and structural reforms. If this success is going to be sustainable and its benefits are going to have long-term, positive results for the Irish people, the time will show.

---

[1] www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21569049-irelands-success-attracting-foreign-investment-has-its-drawbacks-fitter-yet

Why the 2014 European Parliament elections will be about more than protest votes

 
European Parliamentary elections are due to be held in May 2014. Simon Hix and Christophe Crombez look ahead to the campaign, noting that the elections will not only provide an opportunity for Europe’s citizens to express their opinions over the handling of the Eurozone crisis, but will also allow them to take an active role in the selection of the next President of the European Commission. For the first time we could have genuine ‘European’ elections, with the potential to have a real impact in shaping European politics over the next five years. 


Just under a year from now, on 22-25 May 2014, EU citizens will vote in the most important European Parliament elections to date. They will be an opportunity for European citizens to express their views about how Europe’s leaders have addressed the crisis in the Eurozone. Furthermore, the elections will provide a mandate for, or a break against, the plans for further political and economic integration in Europe. They will produce a new political majority in the European Parliament, which will influence how the EU and the single market will be governed for the next five years. And, above all, with rival candidates for the Commission President before the elections, this will be the first time we, as European citizens, will be able to choose who holds the most powerful executive office in the EU.
The issue that has dominated politics in Europe in recent years has been the Eurozone crisis, and the merits of following an austerity policy to combat it. Cuts in public spending in Eurozone member states have largely been imposed by the EU, by the European Commission as well as by the EU governments. Nearly every national election since the onset of the crisis in early 2010 has been fought on the issue of austerity and the consequent relations with the EU. Far from European elections being national elections these days, national elections have started to become European elections.

Credit: European Parliament (Creative Commons BY-NC-ND)

National elections are, however, not the best way to bring about changes in EU policies. A vote against austerity in one member state merely affects the policy positions of one of the 27 players in the Council. Such a vote may make it somewhat harder for the Commission to get the Council to sign off on its policies, but that is about all the impact such a vote may have. Even an unexpected victory of the left in the German elections in September will not lead to drastic changes in EU policies.
Voters can change EU policies though, through their votes in European Parliament elections rather than national elections. European Parliament elections matter, and not only because the majority in the next European Parliament will play a key role setting the rules in the single market and the Eurozone. The next European Parliament will also “elect” the next Commission President. For the first time, the main European parties are planning to propose candidates for this job, and the candidate from the largest party in the new Parliament is likely to then be elected as the next Commission President.
The hot favourite to be the candidate of the centre-left Party of European Socialists (PES) is Martin Schulz, the German Social Democrat who is currently President of the European Parliament. Other names on the centre-left are also in the frame, including Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the Danish Prime Minister, José Luis Zapatero, the former Spanish Prime Minister, and Pascal Lamy, the Director-General of the WTO. Meanwhile, names being mentioned as the possible candidate of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) are Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, Viviane Reding, the Commission Vice-President, Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish Prime Minister, Dalia Grybauskaitė, the Lithuanian President, and Christine Lagarde, the Managing Director of the IMF. From the other Euro parties, the Liberals could propose Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian PM and current leader of the Liberal group in the European Parliament, while the European Greens are planning an on-line ‘open primary’ to decide their candidate.
With rival candidates from rival parties, the elections will become a vote for the Commission President and his or her manifesto for the future of the EU, as much as a vote for the European Parliament. But, what is particularly significant in this regard is that the two parties that have the most chance of capturing this post, the EPP and PES, have taken vastly different positions on how to tackle the Eurozone crisis. The EPP is in favour of maintaining austerity policies, whereas the PES strongly opposes this. Hence, European citizens will have a clear choice in May next year. They can limit austerity, by casting their votes for MEPs from national parties in the PES, or they can vote in favour of the continuation of current austerity policies by voting for MEPs from national parties in the EPP.
There will of course be another option altogether: to reject both the centre-right and centre-left’s agendas for the EU by voting for a Eurosceptic party or movement. Although there is likely to be either a PES or EPP Commission President from 2015, there could be a significant bloc of Eurosceptic MEPs after the 2014 elections. These anti-European MEPs would then be able to influence the direction of the EU policy agenda. And, a large vote for Eurosceptic parties would force the next Commission President as well as the EU governments to address citizens’ concerns about further economic and political integration.
So, in next year’s European Parliament elections voters will be presented with several distinct options for the future direction of the EU. The political majority that emerges from the elections will not only determine the policies pursued by the European Parliament, but also the person who will hold the most powerful executive office in the EU machinery – the Commission President. For the first time these could be genuine ‘European’ elections, the outcome of which will shape European politics for at least the next five years.

Originally published in: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/06/03/european-parliament-elections-2014/