This House believes Turkey is not a democracy

The rule of law, limits on the power of the state, and the provision of personal rights are key to any country being considered to be a liberal democracy but these are being undermined in Turkey. This is most noticeable when it comes to freedom of the press. Turkey’s press freedoms have been in decline. It is a dismal 154^th on the press freedom index[1] and most notable is that it is the country with the most imprisoned journalists with at least 76 imprisoned, mostly without having been convicted and as a result of their work.[2] The lack of freedom of the press and how cowed the press is has been shown in the recent rioting; CNN covered the protests live, at the same time its Turkish language subsidiary CNN Turk was broadcasting a cooking show.[3]

[1] ‘21013 World Press Freedom Index: Dashed Hopes After Spring’, Reporters Without Borders, 2013, http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html

[2] Greenslade, Roy, ‘Turkish press freedom crisis’, guardian.co.uk, 23 October 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/oct/23/press-freedom-turkey

[3] Cook, Steven A., and Koplow, Michael, ‘How Democratic Is Turkey?’, Foreign Policy, 3 June 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/02/how_democratic_is_turkey

Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journalists in prison as the media can still be effective even when some journalists are imprisoned. The OSCE when looking at the 2011 elections said “The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively” for example all parties are able to purchase airtime under equal conditions.[1]

[1] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588, pp.2, 19

Turkey has been heading towards being a one party, even a one person, state. Erdoğan is intending to change the constitution is an attempt to institutionalise this. His new presidency would have the power to issue decrees with force of law, dissolve parliament and call elections, and to command the military.[1] The attempt to change to a presidential system is clearly a move to enable Erdoğan to avoid the limit of three terms in much the same way as Vladimir Putin did by switching jobs. A presidential system is not bad in principle but it should not be simply used as a vehicle for a particular politician. Moreover any change of such a magnitude in a democratic country should be done only with popular consent – something that this change does not have. In a February 2013 poll 65.8% of Turks favoured keeping the parliamentary system and only 21.2% were in favour of a change to a presidential system.[2]

[1] The Editors, ‘Erdogan Shows Why Turkey Shouldn’t Give Him More Power’, Bloomberg, 3 June 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/erdogan-shows-why-turkey-shouldn-t-give-him-more-power.html

[2] ‘Majority of Turks against switch to presidential system, survey reveals’, Today’s Zaman, 19 February 2013, http://todayszaman.com/news-307497-majority-of-turks-against-switch-to-presidential-system-survey-reveals.html

It is clearly too early to condemn Erdoğan’s desire to change Turkey to a presidential system. We do not yet have much idea what this actually means and there is no clear reason why this could not be a step forward. Erdoğan clearly wants a powerful presidency but there is no saying that this is what he will get once the horse trading is done and even if he does there are systems with powerful presidents that are clearly democratic such as the US and French systems. The change to a presidential system could also solve problems; it would replace a constitution that was drafted under military rule, and it would increase regional autonomy,[1] but much more importantly if done correctly it could create strong durable institutions that will ensure democratic rule far into the future.[2]

[1] ‘Presidential Dreaming’, The Economist, 16 March 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21573554-how-peace-deal-kurds-could-pave-way-new-turkish-constitution-presidential

[2] Tremblay, Pinar, ‘Will Presidential System Move Turkey Forward?’, Al Monitor, 14 April 2013, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/turkey-erdogan-sultan-regime-transparency-elections.html

Under the AKP Turkey has effectively become a one party state; this means that there is not the competition necessary to make Turkey a genuine liberal democracy. Yes alternative parties exist but this does not mean they are going to get any power any time soon if the government can help it. The AKP has been able to get twice as many votes as its nearest rival making it by far the dominant party. The party consolidates power and there are signs that competition in the party is more important than with other parties.[1] The rioting across the country has shown this in several ways. First the resort to violent and street protest shows the opposition don’t think they can oust the AKP at the ballot box. Secondly the response from the leaders of the AKP have been mixed. While Erdoğan has vehemently condemned the protests while President Abdullah Gül has taken a more nuanced line saying “Democracy is not just about elections” and that “If there are objections, there is nothing more natural than voicing them” effectively endorsing some protest.[2]

[1] Yinanç, Barçin, ‘AKP ushering in 'dominant-party system,' says expert’, Hürriyet Daily News, 17 June 2011, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=akp-ushering-in-8216dominant-party-system8217-says-expert-2011-06-17

[2] ‘Democracy is no just about elections, says Turkish President’, Hürriyet Daily News, 3 June 2013, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/democracy-is-not-just-about-elections-says-turkish-president.aspx?pageID=238&nID=48100&NewsCatID=338

Having one dominant party does not make the country an autocracy or prevent Turkey being a liberal democracy. There have been many countries that are considered democratic that have had single parties ruling for long periods. In the UK the Conservatives in the 1980’s and Labour in the 2000’s won three elections just as the AKP has. In Japan the LDP has only lost two elections since the start of Japan’s post World War II democratic system yet it is accepted as being a legitimate democracy. Rather than worrying about a single party dominance we should be applauding parties that are successful in putting together such a broad coalition that they can win election after election, they clearly represent most of the population which is the point of democracy.

The trigger for the rioting; construction projects building over a park and a square are a good analogy for the government as a whole. The AKP government does not care for public opinion and is happy to push through projects without reference to it. In the case of Taksim square the government did not consult about plans to bulldoze the park despite it being the site of a massacre in 1977 making it a place of historical significance. A court ruling to stop construction was also ignored.[1] It is the same with legislation, the controversial changes to alcohol laws were only proposed a month before they were passed and debate was limited to two days,[2] while some important business particularly involving day to day running of foreign and defence has very little oversight.[3]

[1] Yackley, Ayla Jean, ‘Insight: Simmering anger at Erdogan's authoritarianism boils over in Turkey’, Reuters, 2 June 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/02/us-turkey-protests-insight-idUSBRE9510DJ20130602

[2] Resneck, Jacob, ‘Anti-alcohol bill leaves many Turks dispirited’, USA Today, 29 May 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/28/turkey-alcohol/2366649/

[3] ‘Turkey Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi (T.B.M.M) (Grand National Assembly of Turkey)’, Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2009, http://www.ipu.org/parline/reports/CtrlParlementaire/2323_F.htm#conpoletr

This is one of the flaws of a parliamentary system; when a single party has a large majority, as the AKP does, they can essentially get whatever they want through parliament. This is why systems such as Britain’s have been called elective dictatorship, something which a change in the constitution could potentially solve but clearly does not preclude the country in question being considered to be a liberal democracy.

The AKP is not just making Turkey authoritarian it is making it an Islamic authoritarian state. Since a 1928 amendment to the constitution Turkey has been a secular state. Recently Turkey rushed through restrictions on the sale of alcohol prohibiting sale overnight.[1] More worryingly than minor restrictions is a decline in gender equality and respect for religious minorities; in 2002, the year the AKP came to power Turkey was ranked 63^rd in the UN’s Gender Empowerment Measure, by 2009 it had dropped to 101^st out of 109 countries.[2] Without respect for these groups it is difficult to see how Turkey can be considered a liberal democracy that provides for equal and personal rights.

[1] Letsch, Constanze, ‘Turkey alcohol laws could pull the plug on Istanbul nightlife’, guardian.co.uk, 31 May 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/31/turkey-alcohol-laws-istanbul-nightlife

[2] Onanç, Gülseren, ‘Women’s place in Turkey is alarming’, United Nations Development Programme, New Horizons Issue 47 November 2009, http://www.undp.org.tr/Gozlem2.aspx?WebSayfaNo=2196

Liberal democracy is flexible; it can incorporate secular and non-secular, different religions, cultures, or views of the role of the state. Many liberal democracies have restrictions on the sale of alcohol; some parts of the United States are entirely dry. Gender equality is more of an issue but women are allowed to vote in Turkey – which is essential to democracy.[1] Other rights however are up to individual culture to decide. Even if we don’t like a lack of gender equality in Turkey we should not consider the country not to be democratic because of it.

[1] ‘February 6, 1935 Turkey Holds First Election That Allows Women to Vote’, OUPblog, 6 February 2012, http://blog.oup.com/2012/02/turkey-women-vote/

The rule of law, limits on the power of the state, and the provision of personal rights are key to any country being considered to be a liberal democracy but these are being undermined in Turkey. This is most noticeable when it comes to freedom of the press. Turkey’s press freedoms have been in decline. It is a dismal 154^th on the press freedom index[1] and most notable is that it is the country with the most imprisoned journalists with at least 76 imprisoned, mostly without having been convicted and as a result of their work.[2] The lack of freedom of the press and how cowed the press is has been shown in the recent rioting; CNN covered the protests live, at the same time its Turkish language subsidiary CNN Turk was broadcasting a cooking show.[3]

[1] ‘21013 World Press Freedom Index: Dashed Hopes After Spring’, Reporters Without Borders, 2013, http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html

[2] Greenslade, Roy, ‘Turkish press freedom crisis’, guardian.co.uk, 23 October 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/oct/23/press-freedom-turkey

[3] Cook, Steven A., and Koplow, Michael, ‘How Democratic Is Turkey?’, Foreign Policy, 3 June 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/02/how_democratic_is_turkey

Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journalists in prison as the media can still be effective even when some journalists are imprisoned. The OSCE when looking at the 2011 elections said “The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively” for example all parties are able to purchase airtime under equal conditions.[1]

[1] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588, pp.2, 19

Turkey has been heading towards being a one party, even a one person, state. Erdoğan is intending to change the constitution is an attempt to institutionalise this. His new presidency would have the power to issue decrees with force of law, dissolve parliament and call elections, and to command the military.[1] The attempt to change to a presidential system is clearly a move to enable Erdoğan to avoid the limit of three terms in much the same way as Vladimir Putin did by switching jobs. A presidential system is not bad in principle but it should not be simply used as a vehicle for a particular politician. Moreover any change of such a magnitude in a democratic country should be done only with popular consent – something that this change does not have. In a February 2013 poll 65.8% of Turks favoured keeping the parliamentary system and only 21.2% were in favour of a change to a presidential system.[2]

[1] The Editors, ‘Erdogan Shows Why Turkey Shouldn’t Give Him More Power’, Bloomberg, 3 June 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/erdogan-shows-why-turkey-shouldn-t-give-him-more-power.html

[2] ‘Majority of Turks against switch to presidential system, survey reveals’, Today’s Zaman, 19 February 2013, http://todayszaman.com/news-307497-majority-of-turks-against-switch-to-presidential-system-survey-reveals.html

It is clearly too early to condemn Erdoğan’s desire to change Turkey to a presidential system. We do not yet have much idea what this actually means and there is no clear reason why this could not be a step forward. Erdoğan clearly wants a powerful presidency but there is no saying that this is what he will get once the horse trading is done and even if he does there are systems with powerful presidents that are clearly democratic such as the US and French systems. The change to a presidential system could also solve problems; it would replace a constitution that was drafted under military rule, and it would increase regional autonomy,[1] but much more importantly if done correctly it could create strong durable institutions that will ensure democratic rule far into the future.[2]

[1] ‘Presidential Dreaming’, The Economist, 16 March 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21573554-how-peace-deal-kurds-could-pave-way-new-turkish-constitution-presidential

[2] Tremblay, Pinar, ‘Will Presidential System Move Turkey Forward?’, Al Monitor, 14 April 2013, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/turkey-erdogan-sultan-regime-transparency-elections.html

Under the AKP Turkey has effectively become a one party state; this means that there is not the competition necessary to make Turkey a genuine liberal democracy. Yes alternative parties exist but this does not mean they are going to get any power any time soon if the government can help it. The AKP has been able to get twice as many votes as its nearest rival making it by far the dominant party. The party consolidates power and there are signs that competition in the party is more important than with other parties.[1] The rioting across the country has shown this in several ways. First the resort to violent and street protest shows the opposition don’t think they can oust the AKP at the ballot box. Secondly the response from the leaders of the AKP have been mixed. While Erdoğan has vehemently condemned the protests while President Abdullah Gül has taken a more nuanced line saying “Democracy is not just about elections” and that “If there are objections, there is nothing more natural than voicing them” effectively endorsing some protest.[2]

[1] Yinanç, Barçin, ‘AKP ushering in 'dominant-party system,' says expert’, Hürriyet Daily News, 17 June 2011, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=akp-ushering-in-8216dominant-party-system8217-says-expert-2011-06-17

[2] ‘Democracy is no just about elections, says Turkish President’, Hürriyet Daily News, 3 June 2013, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/democracy-is-not-just-about-elections-says-turkish-president.aspx?pageID=238&nID=48100&NewsCatID=338

Having one dominant party does not make the country an autocracy or prevent Turkey being a liberal democracy. There have been many countries that are considered democratic that have had single parties ruling for long periods. In the UK the Conservatives in the 1980’s and Labour in the 2000’s won three elections just as the AKP has. In Japan the LDP has only lost two elections since the start of Japan’s post World War II democratic system yet it is accepted as being a legitimate democracy. Rather than worrying about a single party dominance we should be applauding parties that are successful in putting together such a broad coalition that they can win election after election, they clearly represent most of the population which is the point of democracy.

The trigger for the rioting; construction projects building over a park and a square are a good analogy for the government as a whole. The AKP government does not care for public opinion and is happy to push through projects without reference to it. In the case of Taksim square the government did not consult about plans to bulldoze the park despite it being the site of a massacre in 1977 making it a place of historical significance. A court ruling to stop construction was also ignored.[1] It is the same with legislation, the controversial changes to alcohol laws were only proposed a month before they were passed and debate was limited to two days,[2] while some important business particularly involving day to day running of foreign and defence has very little oversight.[3]

[1] Yackley, Ayla Jean, ‘Insight: Simmering anger at Erdogan's authoritarianism boils over in Turkey’, Reuters, 2 June 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/02/us-turkey-protests-insight-idUSBRE9510DJ20130602

[2] Resneck, Jacob, ‘Anti-alcohol bill leaves many Turks dispirited’, USA Today, 29 May 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/28/turkey-alcohol/2366649/

[3] ‘Turkey Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi (T.B.M.M) (Grand National Assembly of Turkey)’, Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2009, http://www.ipu.org/parline/reports/CtrlParlementaire/2323_F.htm#conpoletr

This is one of the flaws of a parliamentary system; when a single party has a large majority, as the AKP does, they can essentially get whatever they want through parliament. This is why systems such as Britain’s have been called elective dictatorship, something which a change in the constitution could potentially solve but clearly does not preclude the country in question being considered to be a liberal democracy.

The AKP is not just making Turkey authoritarian it is making it an Islamic authoritarian state. Since a 1928 amendment to the constitution Turkey has been a secular state. Recently Turkey rushed through restrictions on the sale of alcohol prohibiting sale overnight.[1] More worryingly than minor restrictions is a decline in gender equality and respect for religious minorities; in 2002, the year the AKP came to power Turkey was ranked 63^rd in the UN’s Gender Empowerment Measure, by 2009 it had dropped to 101^st out of 109 countries.[2] Without respect for these groups it is difficult to see how Turkey can be considered a liberal democracy that provides for equal and personal rights.

[1] Letsch, Constanze, ‘Turkey alcohol laws could pull the plug on Istanbul nightlife’, guardian.co.uk, 31 May 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/31/turkey-alcohol-laws-istanbul-nightlife

[2] Onanç, Gülseren, ‘Women’s place in Turkey is alarming’, United Nations Development Programme, New Horizons Issue 47 November 2009, http://www.undp.org.tr/Gozlem2.aspx?WebSayfaNo=2196

Liberal democracy is flexible; it can incorporate secular and non-secular, different religions, cultures, or views of the role of the state. Many liberal democracies have restrictions on the sale of alcohol; some parts of the United States are entirely dry. Gender equality is more of an issue but women are allowed to vote in Turkey – which is essential to democracy.[1] Other rights however are up to individual culture to decide. Even if we don’t like a lack of gender equality in Turkey we should not consider the country not to be democratic because of it.

[1] ‘February 6, 1935 Turkey Holds First Election That Allows Women to Vote’, OUPblog, 6 February 2012, http://blog.oup.com/2012/02/turkey-women-vote/

The most fundamental part of democracy is the ability of the people to influence their government. In almost all democracies this is done through elections to parliament. This is the case in Turkey. There was general acceptance that the elections that the AKP won were free elections. The US state department said the elections were carried out “in a free and fair manner”[1] while the OSCE election observers said “The parliamentary elections demonstrated a broad commitment to hold democratic elections” although there was the odd complaint.[2] Turnout in elections is very high compared to many democracies and is actually rising; it was 79% in 2002, the election that brought AKP to power, increasing to 88% in 2011.[3] If turnout is any indicator (and clearly it is or else mature democracies such as the UK would not be worried about their own falling turnout) the AKP would appear to be strengthening democracy in the eyes of voters.

[1] Toner, Mark, ‘US Congratulates Turkey on Elections’, Embassy of the United States Turkey, 13 June 2011, http://turkey.usembassy.gov/pr_061411.html

[2] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588, p.1

[3] ‘Voter turnout data for Turkey’, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 5 October 2011, http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=TR

High electoral turnout is in large part a result of turkey having compulsory voting so it is difficult to see how this statistic is an indicator of the democratic health of the country. There is also a big difference between having a liberal democracy and a ‘tyranny of the majority’ Turkey under AKP has been much more the latter. Erdoğan has threatened the opposition “if you gather 100,000 people, I can gather a million” showing that the majority and numbers are simply being used to browbeat anyone who opposes his plans.[1] A democracy means more than holding regular elections; even regimes everyone recognizes as authoritarian, such as Kazakhstan or Iran, hold them.

[1] Cook, Steven A., and Koplow, Michael, ‘How Democratic Is Turkey?’, Foreign Policy, 3 June 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/02/how_democratic_is_turkey  

There has now been more than thirty years without an army coup but it has only been during the AKP government that the army has finally been cowed with the army being forced to defend its actions in court.[1] The AKP has brought about a fundamental transformation in the relationship between the military and civilian governments reducing the military’s influence; consistent with military subservience to civilian authority in other democracies. The National Security Council was turned from a executive body into an advisory board that was dominated by civilians and Parliamentary control over the military’s budget was strengthened. The Government’s control over the military was shown by the Ergenekon trials where senior army generals were accused of plotting a coup, with the result that the government showed the power of the judiciary over the military and took control over promotion.[2]

[1] Demir, Firat, ‘Here's What You Need to Know about the Clashes in Turkey’, Foreign Policy, 1 June 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/01/here_s_what_you_need_to_know_about_the_clashes_in_turkey?page=0,1

[2] Balta-Parker, Evren, and Akça, Ismet, ‘Beyond Military Tutelage? Turkish Military Politics and the AKP Government’, in Ebru Canan-Sokullu ed., Debating Security in Turkey, 15 December 2012, http://www.academia.edu/3426148/Beyond_Military_Tutelage_Turkish_Military_Politics_and_the_AKP_Government, pp.80, 87

While coups were frequent during the twentieth century each time power was quickly returned to civilian hands meaning that even including the coups Turkey had a vibrant democracy.[1]

[1] Baran, Zeyno, ‘Is Kemalism Dead in Turkey?’, Defining Ideas, 13 December 2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/59031

Democracies are only truly democratic when they accept that their minorities have rights and deserve a place in the political system even if those minorities themselves want a separate state. Only then does the country truly represent and work for everyone within the state. It has only been during Erdoğan’s time as Prime Minister that this has happened in Turkey.

Turkey has spent its history since its founding ninety years ago discriminating against the Kurds by denying they are a separate ethnicity. Now however there is a cease fire in place and serious consideration for major constitutional changes that would recognize the Kurds.[1] Already there have been significant changes like allowing the use of Kurdish in public life and the launch of a Kurdish language TV station and courses in universities.[2]

[1] Hannah, John, ‘Erdogan's Great Gamble’, Foreign Policy, 14 May 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/14/erdogan_turkey_kurds_peace_process_pkk

[2] Zalewski, Pitr, ‘The Kurds’ Last Battle in Turkey: Teaching Kids Kurdish’, The Atlantic, 9 May 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/the-kurds-last-battle-in-turkey-teaching-kids-kurdish/275719/

We do not yet know if this is a false dawn when it comes to peace with the Kurds. Erdoğan could simply be using the process for his own ends; either to secure the Olympics for Istanbul or to secure a powerful presidency for himself. Alternatively he may simply be seeking to divide the Kurds so making them easier to defeat.[1] As yet with no political deal or real knowledge of what the settlement might be considering this a democratic advance seems a bit farfetched.

[1] Hannah, John, ‘Erdogan's Great Gamble’, Foreign Policy, 14 May 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/14/erdogan_turkey_kurds_peace_process_pkk

It is clear that the government is legitimate; it received 49% of the vote in the 2011 elections, an increase. By comparison Tony Blair’s ‘landslide’ win in 1997 was achieved with 43.2% of the vote.[1]  And it is a legitimate government in large part because it is an effective government. This has particularly been the case on the economic front. There are of course a few problems, as there always are even in booming economies, but Turkey has an enviable record over the ten years of AKP rule. Public debt fell from 74% in 2002 to 40% in 2011, productivity growth has averaged 3-3.5%, economic growth has hovered around 8% and inflation took a tumble from almost 70% when the AKP was elected to high single figures.[2] It is no surprise that the electorate has rewarded the government that has pulled this off.

[1] Johnson, Ron, et al., ‘Anatoimy of a Labour Landslide: The Constituency System and the 1997 General Election’, Parliamentary Affairs, 1998, http://sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/publications/1998/johnston_et_al_landslide_1998.pdf, p.1

[2] ‘Istanbuls and bears’, The Economist, 7 April 2012, http://www.economist.com/node/21552216

Democratic legitimacy cannot simply be equated with economic growth even if most people see the economy as the main issue when it comes to voting. The economy is important but there are plenty of countries which have used economic growth to buttress undemocratic regimes; China being the obvious example where the state’s legitimacy is intimately bound up with economic growth.[1]

[1] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party?page=4