Assessing the AKP’s eighteenth anniversary, Political Scientists Sezin Öney and Edgar Şar expressed the view that, rather than solving problems, the AKP is trying to preserve its rule through polarization.
Şerif KARATAŞ
İstanbul
On the occasion of the eighteenth anniversary of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), we spoke to Edgar Şar, who was expelled from the Political Sciences and International Relations Department of Yıldız Technical University under Decree with the Force of Law number 686, and political scientist Sezin Öney. With Edgar Şar saying, “While formerly speaking of a semi-authoritarian regime, we now speak of a regime gradually in certain respects moving towards full authoritarianism,” Sezin Öney made the assessment, “Like a sinking ingot, it is pulling the country down with it.”
Noting that politics had not found the solution to the Kurdish problem through the polarizing and insoluble “secular-pious” and “Turkish-Kurdish” tension at the start of the 2000’s when the AKP came to power along with the economic crisis, Edgar Şar indicated that the CHP had entered parliament and was in power as the opposition along with the AKP.
Stating that regard must be given to the questions, “What was society’s expectation with social support for the AK Party at one time increasing? Where have we come now?” Şar noted, “The thing we call tutelage democracy; we are talking about there being elections but the tutelage of certain bodies over this democracy. And this was the military. There are those who call this a bureaucratic oligarchy. We see that the AK Party purged this. There was a flawed democratic system. Tutelage came into play in matters over which we knew the state to be sensitive, be it secularism or such as religion-state relations and the Kurdish problem. There is a need to ask what the incoming regime, the incoming system was at the time a flawed system of democracy disappeared.”
Stressing that the AKP had not introduced a solution for society’s gangrenous problems, Şar stated that there had been a retrogression in problems that had not been solved under flawed democracy and said, “While formerly speaking of a semi-authoritarian regime, we now speak of a regime gradually in certain respects moving towards full authoritarianism.”
Recalling the AKP’s move with regard to solving the Kurdish problem, Şar said, “The starting of the solution process made many say, ‘Strong leaders will solve the fundamental problems in Turkey because they will persuade the people, etc.’ However, what is lost sight of is that this is basically a question totally related to democracy. Come what may, it is a problem originating from a lack of democracy ever since the start of the republic. It cannot be solved from an undemocratic perspective, for example through a capacity for leadership. What we see at present is essentially that the Kurdish problem is a thing that can be solved only with the whole of society coming together. If this affair is left at the whim of strong leaders or certain individuals, no solution is embarked on when this does not suit them.”
Stressing the politics that the AKP bases on polarization, Şar recalled the “reconstruction” rhetoric that is from time to time voiced within the AKP and said, “Following the third term, the AK Party was going to stage a reconstruction period with the Gulenists when it had fully ended the semi-authoritarian regime. When they quarrelled, that reconstruction period was delayed a bit.”
Pointing to the position of the AKP which had suffered defeat during the 7 June elections, he noted, “The most feared thing of all leaders who dream of the presidential system – and we had also this from time to time with Turgut Özal – is society distancing itself from them and losing the majority at a time when they were unable to govern and entering into a coalition and, fearing this and to guard against this possibility, the system was geared to trusting society’s rightist reflexes and eliminating coalition from the outset. This gearing aimed at the very least for there to be no repeat occurrence of something like 7 June. Oh, but it did not end up as planned because that system incorporates all things so that this system does not enter into coalitions and the single man can govern in all ways. But in this way we see that, due to many conditions, a country like Turkey cannot be governed like this be it on account of the economy or social diversity.”
Secularism and the AKP’s policies aimed at conservatizing society was another topic we discussed with Edgar Şar. Stressing that an important opportunity presented itself in Turkey when military tutelage ended and this could have been accomplished with a new constitution, Şar said the AKP did not opt for this. Şar elaborated, “There was the 2010 constitutional amendment. Politics progressed around discussion of who would establish the new tutelage. And those who established this new tutelage - with the constant presence within the ruling block in Turkey of Islamist groups, orders and brotherhoods and tutelage being established by this block - left behind no secularism. I am also opposed in Turkey to attributing its problems being experienced today to just one section of society over a particular time period. Turkey’s intellectuals with differing viewpoints, as long as they are democratic, could, when military tutelage ended, have engaged in discussion saying, if by secularism we understand not the secularism of 28 February, but in a true sense based on a viewpoint and definition of secularism in which everyone can experience freedom of religion and conscience, lifestyles are not violated, institutions are not under the influence of a specific religion or under the influence of a coterie within that religion and is pluralistic and encapsulates all believers and non-believers, but they made no effort along the lines of, “OK, drop the old secularism but how about we define this secularism this way?” The AKP and its partner at the time had gained a huge space for manoeuvre. In fact, at that time there was no talk of Alevis’ rights etc. And it slowly started. First the state’s objectives started. Raising a pious generation. It was not to be secular. Education gradually started to move away from secularism and started basically to move beyond conservatism to fostering militancy in this field.”
Explaining that there was an effort in democratic countries for domestic policy and foreign policy not to become intertwined, Edgar Şar stated that this was a principle. Noting that regardless of how countries define their security and international interests it was relatively normal for them to act in accordance with their national interests and security concerns, Şar opined, “But foreign policy makers are implementing whatever the power holders’ short-term interests currently throw up, not the country’s interests.”
Stressing that the AKP uses rhetoric of democracy and freedom as an instrument not a goal, Edgar Şar pointed to the opposition’s position. What the opposition needs to do according to Şar is to create a democratic plane for the solving of such gangrenous problems as the Kurdish problem rather than engaging in opposition to Erdoğan. Şar continued, “There can be no opposition without piercing and getting out of this framework within which the AK Party marshals the fears it creates. If you ask me, I think the opposition has pierced this to a large extent and its success on 31 March and in the 23 June Istanbul elections derives from this. But we still see in places that it remains imprisoned in this framework, sometimes due to an inability to interpret and sometimes reticence and a timidity. The opposition’s task is not just to win elections.”
Stressing that when the AKP was in trouble politically it wheeled out whatever issue the opposition was weak on, Şar noted that the Kurdish problem and secularism had pride of place amongst these. Stressing that he saw society as forming a mosaic countering the AKP and MHP block and it now wanted to break up this mosaic, Şar finally indicated that the trustees appointed to HDP municipalities was part of this.
Assessing the AKP’s eighteenth anniversary, Political Scientist Sezin Öney noted that the non-appearance of an alternative to the ruling party and politics’ inability to breathe was stifling the country and commented, “Like a sinking ingot, it is pulling the country down with it.”
We spoke about the AKP’s eighteenth anniversary with Political Scientist Sezin Öney. Öney made the following remarks:
“I observed the Bursa rally before the AKP came to power. Even looking through today’s eyes, there was no hint of such “extraordinary electricity” or an incredible transformation that would lead to the holding of power for eighteen years and would create system change. What the AKP has done from that day until now is to exploit most masterfully the gaps in Turkish politics. At the base there was a weariness with the existing political set-up and a wish for change. The AKP used this to come to power. Once having come to power, it both continued to exploit the gaps in politics and sculpted politics entirely to suit itself by creating new ‘gaps.’ What I mean by ‘creating gaps’ is that the wish and search for social and political change in Turkey has not ended. Quite the reverse, it has continued from the outset of the 2000’s transformed into a far more powerful, far more vital and life-and-death quest. What has changed as against eighteen years ago is that it is far harder for an alternative to the AKP, a candidate for power, to emerge in politics today. If there is a breathing space for politics it is destroyed and stifled so that no alternative to the ruling party appears and can appear.”
Saying, “Once you have strayed from democracy and the principles of the rule of law,” Öney said, “The AKP has no viewpoint on society’s and Turkey’s fundamental issues, but from now on this non-existent viewpoint cannot shift axis to the course of democracy. The slightest breathing space in politics becomes a stage for a search external to the AKP, an alternative to the AKP, because if there was a search in the 2000’s this search has reached a crescendo in the run-up to the 2020’s. The AKP has brought this search to a crescendo with its own mistakes. It is shouldering the burden of the past. We are experiencing a paradox, actually. It gets harder for the AKP to hang on to power thanks the burden of all the mistakes. The weight on its back is getting heavier and prevents it from moving. In fact, as the weight increases so do its machinations to stay in power and its efforts to fill the gaps that might create breathing space in politics. Like a sinking ingot, it is pulling the country down with it.”
Pointing to the AKP’s Syria-heavy foreign policy, Öney said, “The Syrian war has become a disaster that is affecting the whole world and overturning all our values. Our view on migration has changed and our viewpoint on human pain suffered due to war and conflict has changed profoundly. And this change has been for the worse. A good portion of the universal rights and legal principles that have been won since the Second World War have undergone serious erosion. The power holders in Turkey have regarded this war as an instrument for self-interest from the outset. With all the foreign ministers, prime ministers and cabinets to have come and gone, there has been no change of viewpoint or different approach regarding Syria. The result has been disastrous for Syria, if there remains any such country. The result has been disastrous for both Turkey and Europe. As I said, we have lost our values. Migration has turned into a source of phobia throughout the world and has turned into a situation deemed to be “shameful.” In fact, migration, people changing places for better conditions and circumstances, has been one of the most important phenomena and truths in humanity’s development and transformation. As a result of Syrians who have fled war in Turkey being regarded as an instrument to be exploited by politics, this has caused a rejection from which it is very hard to return. Syrians in Turkey are a social reality but, thanks to incorrect policies, it is now hard for this reality to find acceptance. Unfortunately, even the majority of those who approach the issue of the Syrians with the most humanist of motives approach the matter in rote fashion with the intention of speaking the truth. When you look at society as a whole, though, there is a very harsh state of rejection and even hate. This rejection that has spread into all political opinions and all circles of society is actually nothing but making Syrians pay the price for everything that has gone wrong in recent years. Supporters of the ruling party also project what is going wrong in their lives in the form of ‘anti-Syrianism’.”
Assessing secularism and discussions in the educational field, Sezin Öney said, “Vocational religious high schools was the AKP’s largest transformation policy. It did not work out or even backfired to a large extent. Vocational religious high schools were the guarantee for the AKP rule’s social transformation policy. It was unable to accomplish this transformation and project, but the education system in Turkey has collapsed. Over and above the vocational religious high schools, the state reached by the syllabus is horrific. If anyone has taken stock of the state that national education schoolbooks have fallen into in most recent years, they have observed the exponential drop in educational quality. Those satisfied with education in society as a whole form a very limited minority. Looking at public opinion polls we see that a majority in the 70’s or 80’s per cent are dissatisfied with the quality of education in Turkey. One of the basic planks of society was the belief in education. People in Turkey believed they could change their lives through education. The belief and goal of the possibility of lives changing through education has now been lost. A political movement displaying by way of goal that it will improve education and improve educational conditions could even come to power on this promise alone. The situation of not leaving breathing spaces I referred to at the outset is not in any case a situation that will last for ever. Change will most certainly come. It is just a matter of time.”
(Translated by Tim DRAYTON)
Ceren Sözeri
Yusuf Karadaş
Aras Coşkuntuncel