Analysis: The nine lives of Turkey's AKP
Thursday, 31 Jul 2008 08:13
Turkey keeps mosque and state separate
In Focus
Keeping the peace in Africa has always been difficult – as the "increasingly desperate" crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo shows. Full Story
Turkey's governing party has just been reprieved from the threat of immediate extinction. It's no wonder the country's politics is being described as in a state of "semi-permanent crisis".
Following a high-stakes legal ruling that the party need not be immediately disbanded because of its religious tendencies, attention now turns to whether the Justice and Development party (AKP) will continue its divisive policies.
Making enemies
The AKP appeared to have silenced the doubters over its non-secular problem last year in a spat over the election of Turkey's president.
Former foreign minister Abdullah Gul was the party's favoured candidate and, as expected, won the popular vote. Opposition parties, fearing his allegedly non-secular record, kicked up a fuss over his candidature and blocked his confirmation in parliament.
The result was an early general election to the Turkish parliament, which saw the AKP improve its share of the vote to an enormous 46.5 per cent. It was a striking vindication of their stance; Mr Gul was sworn in soon afterwards. Party officials hoped to have put the divisive episode behind them.
How misguided they were. A year on, the popular AKP again faced attack from the powerful secular forces in Turkish politics. This time the stakes were much higher, coming in the form of a legal challenge over its non-religious credentials. Modern Turkey has kept mosque and state strictly separate and the charge laid against the AKP, in essence, was that it is breaking this principle. A law suit filed by the chief prosecutor of the appeals court challenging the party was ruled admissible and considered before the constitutional court.
At worst, the AKP faced being completely disbanded. Its senior officials, including Turkey's prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, could have been banned from politics. It is no surprise the AKP claimed a "judicial coup" is being masterminded from above. Somehow, despite their protestations, that was where the party found itself.
A changing party
The AKP had only itself to blame, Katinka Barysch of the Centre for European Reform believes. "There are very legitimate concerns about the erosions of the secular order in Turkey," she told
inthenews.co.uk. The chief prosecutor's indictment listed a series of issues like local officials banning alcohol, allegedly on religious grounds. What the AKP failed to do, Ms Barysch argues, is respond to these concerns.
"They should have engaged more in debate, rather than just saying this is all untrue," she argues. Their treatment of a proposed new constitution, which prompted a political storm over the winter after a draft version was leaked, typified the AKP's attitude. Ms Barysch says the party "botched" the issue, failing to provide the nationwide debate needed on Turkey's secular future.
It might seem strange to Brits that the religion issue is such a sensitive one. But it can have practical applications to everyday life in a country like Turkey where most actively follow Islam. The biggest symbol of all is over headscarves for women students at Turkey's universities.
The AKP had passed legislation permitting the wearing of headscarves, arguing the previous ban was preventing women from receiving higher education. In June this year the constitutional court ruled the wearing of the religious symbol contravened secular principles. The fear, it seems, was that those choosing not to wear a headscarf would be negatively stigmatised.
"They didn't give sufficient reassurances to the people," Ms Barysch added. "There was a fear that once it was sanctioned from up above… there would be a lot of pressure on the ground on girls to wear it even if they don't want to." The AKP grumbled, but had to accept the ruling.
Perhaps it should have heeded the warning and modified its behaviour. Fadi Hakura, associate fellow at Chatham House, says it's worth taking into account the contrasting behaviour of the AKP before and after its 2007 election win.
For five years from 2002, Mr Hakura says, the party was focused on implementing the reforms required for accession to the European Union. Civil liberties, equal rights and quite radical free market reforms were pushed through. The country was held up as a role model for the benefits the carrot of EU membership can bring to candidate countries.
Then, after the Gul episode returned the party to power with a strengthened hold over parliament, the AKP's party changed. Now it is state-oriented, pursuing "Islamic populism", and paying only "lip service" to the EU accession process.
"The clash with the secular establishment is inevitable," Mr Hakura argues. "And therefore you see now the political mess emerge and that's where Turkey is now."
Looking ahead
Fortunately for AKP supporters, the party has survived the current crisis. The vote could not have been closer; had one more of the 11 judges on the court voted in favour of a ban it would have taken place. Time for some stock-taking, it seems.
What will be the wider impact of the current crisis? It's fair to say the political ructions are not looking good for the EU process. With the AKP having abandoned the road to reform, according to Mr Hakura and Ms Barysch, the situation appears to be sliding away from the optimism seen in 2005 about Turkish prospects.
This sits badly with British interests. The UK has long been a strong advocate of Turkish accession and the Foreign Office maintains this line resolutely. It points to recent progress on the Law of Foundations as an important step and cites the clear benefits of a link for the UK, the rest of the EU and Turkey itself.
In a recent speech in Istanbul, Europe minister Jim Murphy even went as far as comparing Turkey's accession as having the same impact on the rest of the Islamic world as the accession of the central and eastern European countries did "for closing the final chapters of the cold war".
Mr Murphy's position has not changed at all, MP Bob Laxton says. He chairs the all-party group on Turkey and was deeply worried by the current situation. "The repercussions could be pretty horrendous," he warned before the verdict. But he disagrees with Mr Hakura that progress towards accession is being derailed because of the current problems.
"It is the impression I get talking to the Turkish government that their view is irrespective of what happens… they would go down that road anyway," he said.
Might the AKP's dissolution have been better for the country?
"The country's got to be governed. The AK party is by far the most popular party in Turkey. So there's got to be some resolution," Mr Laxton added.
"It's not a country that's going to go back to some form of feudal dictatorship. It's too hooked into the west and into Europe. There's got to be a way out of this - and ways have been found out of similar impasses in the past."
Ms Barysch is in agreement about this potential silver lining.
"One part of me thinks maybe it's a battle they need to have," she finishes.
"I don't think there is an end point to this. I don't think you will reach a point where you've found the right balance, where everything is stable. These disagreements will continue as they must and that they will continue through more democratic means. That's the most positive outcome we can have out of this."
The AKP may have survived its biggest legal challenge yet. It has huge popular backing but must balance that against the secular establishment's innate superstition. It has, by the skin of its teeth, survived a major threat. Whether it changes its policies as a result remains to be seen.
Alex Stevenson