Turkish elections and Washington ( 2)

The only way Turkey is able to finance this large deficit is through large foreign capital flows. Such flows are not only extremely volatile but they also tend to cause an appreciation of the local currency. And as everyone knows, a strong currency hurts the competitiveness of Turkish exports and fuels the trade deficit. As a result, many in Washington question the sustainability of Turkey’s high growth rate. This is not an academic debate. Most American analysts believe that the economy is at the heart of Turkey’s newfound self-confidence in foreign policy. Similarly, Turkey’s tendency to defy its Western partners on issues like Iran is at least partly explained by economic factors. Therefore, a downturn in the Turkish economy will greatly impact preconceived notions about Turkish foreign policy under the AKP.

In the second and arguably larger camp of critics, there are those concerned about creeping authoritarianism in the Turkish domestic political context. For a very long time, the dilemma in Washington has been the absence of a better alternative to the incumbent. Despite all its potential deficiencies, the AKP seemed the most democratic and pro-Western political party in the domestic context of Turkish politics. The absence of an effective civilian opposition was perceived as a major problem. This was particularly the case in 2007 and 2008, when the military and the judiciary appeared determined to sideline the AKP through undemocratic means. The military’s infamous e-memorandum of April 2007 and the closure case against the AKP a year later found no support in Washington or Europe. Most Western analysts believed that the opposition to the AKP should be a democratic one at the ballot box, not one spearheaded by the Kemalist military or judges.

 Since these dark days of 2007 and 2008, when there were real concerns about a military or judiciary coup, two new developments have changed Turkish domestic dynamics and the Western perception. First, between 2008 and today, the AKP emerged as the clear winner in the struggle for civilian control over the military. This is perceived as a good thing for Turkish democracy. But the second factor complicates this positive image for Turkish democracy. Having won its power struggle with the generals and judges, there is now a sense in Washington that the AKP faces no more checks and balances. Given the number of journalists in jail, many in Washington are asking whether one type of authoritarianism is being replaced by another. Add to this picture the emergence of a more democratic-looking Republican People’s Party (CHP) under the new leadership of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. As a result, it is not surprising that many in Washington and Europe believe it would be a good thing for the AKP supremacy to face stronger democratic opposition.

This is why reputable publications such as the The Economist, which have been remarkably objective about Turkey, are now calling for a stronger showing on the CHP’s behalf in next week’s election. I think a similar mood prevails in Washington. Everyone believes the AKP will win a large majority of seats in Parliament. But it is for a more balanced distribution of political power and to check potential authoritarian tendencies in the writing of the new constitution that a more powerful democratic opposition is desired. This is why many in Washington believe a strong vote for the CHP would be a good thing for Turkish democracy. Instead of anger, the AKP should react with maturity and self-confidence to such Western concerns.