Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Turkey’s Twitter generation is its European future

The protests that started in Istanbul’s Gezi Park two weeks ago have spread across Turkey and show little sign of dying down. They signify a clash between a modernising Turkish society and a still rigid and old-fashioned political system. The protests have resulted in the tragic loss of several lives and are endangering Turkey’s hard-won economic stability as investors take fright. But they also have a silver lining. They might force the government to reconsider its rejection of pluralism. And they might even help to revive Turkey's moribund accession process to the EU.

Turkey's government has spent millions of euros over the last decade on European advertising campaigns to update its image and lessen public opposition to its EU membership bid. The Gezi Park protestors have had a more profound impact on Turkey’s international image in just a few weeks. European news bulletins and social media have been showing a new generation of Turks who, in articulate English, explain how much they value democracy, personal freedoms and tolerance between people with different lifestyles. The colourful banners of Taksim Square have replaced the stock images of mosques, Anatolian peasants or monumental Bosphorus bridges. The huge change that has taken place in Turkish society over the past two decades is suddenly evident to European voters, many of whom previously equated Turkey with Islamism, Kurdish terrorists and mass migration. The images from Gezi Park resonate particularly with younger Europeans who see it as Turkey’s version of the Occupy movements, the Spanish ‘Indignados’ and German ‘Wutbürger’. It is these younger Europeans who will vote on Turkish EU accession if and when the accession negotiations are finished.

The Twitter effect is a new element in the Turkey-EU relationship. The laughable failure of Turkey’s mainstream press to cover the protests accurately has driven people to rely on Twitter and Facebook as their main source of news. Twitter could not have asked for a better marketing campaign than Erdogan’s ranting against “lies on social media”. Turkey is also a trending topic in social media conversations within the EU: here, comments are at the same time becoming more in favour of Turkish accession (because of its people) and more sceptical of it (because of its government).

The EU’s dilemma is how to encourage Turkish society without rewarding the government. The conditionality of the accession talks is a blunt weapon. Germany or another member-state might be tempted to block the opening of the next chapter in the negotiations (on regional policy) to express disdain about government’s brutal reaction to the protests. But such sanctions would only feed the paranoia that Erdogan’s party is spreading about alleged international plots against Turkey. They would reduce the EU’s leverage still further.

Instead, the EU should hug Turkey closer at this great moment in Turkey’s democratic journey. The EU is right to criticise police violence and repression of the media in unequivocal terms – and it should also engage in an intense dialogue with the Turkish government about how to increase pluralism and personal freedoms. There are chapters in the negotiations that could help to guide Turkey through this major transition – such as Chapters 23 and 24 on fundamental rights, justice and home affairs – which Cyprus and other EU countries should unblock.

In a way, the Gezi Park protests are a victory of the accession process so far. Erdogan rose to power by reassuring Turkey’s more liberal, secular classes that he was serious about EU accession and the democratic and economic opening this entailed. Especially during his early years in power, Erdogan significantly strengthened the freedoms of assembly, association and expression. Today’s protests are the result of this enormous opening of the Turkish political space.

Walking around Taksim Square before it was cleared by the police, I saw the vast variety of political opinions and causes represented there: pictures of imprisoned Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan were held up next to a banner for the Muslim Anti-Capitalist League; environmentalists sat in their tents alongside self-declared Communists; youngsters played music while headscarved mothers pushed prams round the park. The atmosphere was festive and friendly, a remarkable display of tolerance and mutual respect. Most of the protesters eschewed violence even in the face of police brutality. The dozens of causes gathered there have conflicting ideologies and visions for Turkey. What unites them is a desire for more pluralism and space for dissent. The fact that these small, diverse organisations immediately sprouted when a breath of oxygen came into the public space is testament to the vibrancy of Turkish civil society.

The problem is that Erdogan’s old-fashioned leadership is more and more at odds with this more pluralist and modern society. The battles between police and protestors are part of a much bigger battle between ‘leader knows best’ politics and modern social participation. Many, if not most, Turks still favour strong leadership and the education system promotes a reverence for Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as the father of the nation.

But Erdogan’s reaction to the protests has made the paternalistic style look like Victorian parenting techniques in a modern family. Erdogan initially refused to enter a dialogue with the rebellious children until they stopped disobeying him. Turkey’s citizens, however, are no longer content to be infantilised. They do not want the prime minister to tell them to drink yoghurt, bear three children and stop drinking alcohol after 10 pm. Erdogan’s ministers, who blamed banks, speculators, a global conspiracy – anyone but themselves – for the protests only showed how out of touch they are with important parts of their own society. Erdogan would have done better to copy Spain’s Mariano Rajoy in his dialogue with the Indignados than Vladimir Putin lambasting Pussy Riot.

Erdogan’s AKP is not alone in having missed or misinterpreted Turkey’s social opening. The other big parties that have dominated Turkish politics for decades fared no better. The secularist centre-left CHP party – which Erdogan has accused of organising the protests – was nowhere to be seen in Gezi Park. Therefore, Gezi Park is also an expression of frustration about the AKP’s (or more precisely Erdogan’s) dominance of Turkish politics, not only over the last 15 years but also for the foreseeable future. It is an outcry of the many social groups who feel disenfranchised by the AKP’s ‘tyranny of the majority’.

The underlying problem is that the AKP fears pluralism. It equates criticism of the government with treachery to the Turkish state that needs to be punished. There is a chance that these protests will help Turkey to start accepting its diversity. If the protests keep spreading, Erdogan and his party will be forced to accept that the expression of opinions and beliefs that they dislike is part of any modern democracy. Europeans should help this process along, not reject Turkey at this critical moment.

Heather Grabbe is director of the Open Society European Policy Institute in Brussels. She was senior advisor to Olli Rehn when he was Commissioner for enlargement. She previously wrote on EU-Turkey relations while deputy director of the Centre for European Reform.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree with most of your analysis however I would like to add some information regarding CHPs position.

The movement started independent from CHP as people unilaterally joined crowds at the evening of 31 May and on 1 June because they believed it was the right thing to do in order to show their dissatisfaction with the government and its definition of democracy.

On first of June, as the crowds have gotten bigger and bigger, CHP decided to have a rally in Kadikoy (at the asian side of Istanbul, far away from Gezi Park). This plan was not welcome at all by the protesters at Gezi Park because many believed that this was an attempt to hijack and take political advantage of the movement which did not start with the leadership of CHP or any other political party. People at Gezi Park expressed their disappointment with CHPs plan to rally at Kadikoy and instead asked everyone (including CHP) to continue gathering at Gezi Park. CHP was fast to reevaluate its position and decided to cancel the rally in Kadikoy and gather at Gezi Park.

I personally think that this was a good move as otherwise people participating independently in the resistance would see CHP as opportunistic politics and this would lessen their popularity within the demonstrators. At Gezi Park there were many people holding signs along the lines "This is not the demonstration of a political party, this is an independent civil resistance".

In the days that followed, while CHP supporters and leadership personally supported the movement, they were careful not to involve CHP institutionaly due to reasons mentioned above. This was important as in the end (or as a next step) the demands of the demonstrators will have to be expressed in a political form at which point a CHP in a warmer relationship with Gezi Parkı may be more valuable.

simon forrester said...

As usual CER has penned a great snapshot of analysis, but there are a couple of conclusions that are somewhat unfounded:

'Turkey’s citizens, however, are no longer content to be infantilised' - may be a reasonable paraphrasing of certain segments of the population, but there is a large proportion of Turkey's citizens who embrace pursuit of a type of paternalistic sultancy that the Ottomans couldn't deliver. Urban centres such Aksaray, Asian Istanbul, Kayseri, Konya, Rize, Siirt, mostly welcome the marginalising of non-conservative lifestyles.

'The secularist centre-left CHP party – which Erdogan has accused of organising the protests – was nowhere to be seen in Gezi Park.' - on the first weekend of the 'Gezi protests', the CHP leader was planning to lead a gathering of CHP supporters into Taksim, but cancelled the action having judged that it would be interpreted as political opportunism. And since, the CHP, and other opposition parties, have deliberately avoided trying to make political party capital from the unrest. After years of completely failing to offer a strategic alternative to the AKP vision, and thereby distancing themselves from the supposedly 'a-political' silent minority, the CHP has finally begun to understand that it needs to re-shape its relationship with liberals. Thus, its lack of appearance in Gezi is not an oversight, but a long-awaited insight from CHP

Simon Forrester
Eurasia Social Change
Ankara

Anonymous said...

I think that countries like the UK should take initiative and develop stronger relations with Turkey, in economy, investments, imigration etc. prior to EU memberships.

Anonymous said...

Turkey's development in last decade under the Erdogan's administration must have disturbed other countries so much that international media and other channels of manipulations saw the Gezi Park protests as a chance to take down the Erdogan Administration. Last 6 months maybe more no PKK attacks were observed. This makes the nationalist party MHP nervious. Because they got nothing else to ask for vote. CHP has already been at Syria's Esed's side because of their Leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu's Alevi/Shii identity. Both parties have lost all their faith in democracy. None asked for early elections as they don't see any chance.

Birol Unal said...

You stated that Erdogan and his party are having difficulty in analysing the root causes of the protests. I fear that they perfectly understand that this is a completely home-grown resistance movement which is a result of year's of power grab by Erdogan. However they want to exploit the events to polarise the society so that they can cement their share of vote within the conservative sections of the society.

Anonymous said...

To my dear European friend,

As a Turkish national, I can understand if you don't want Turkey in the EU. However, what can be the ratinale behind blocking negotiations with Turkey, especially the topics about the individual freedom, democracy and human rights(such as Chapters 23 and 24 on fundamental rights, justice and home affairs)?

No matter what is the result of Turkey's EU process, Turkey will always be your neighbor. Isn't it also in your best interest to have a more democratic neighbor? I'm not even bringing how the EU's sincerity about praising values such as democracy and human rights will be questioned by the Turkish youth, which by the way, will only help people who are against the European values.

I will see you my European friend, in Berlin, in Istanbul, in New York, in Shanghai or in Dubai and I'm hoping that I will be able to believe you as we talk about democracy and human rights as universal values.

Anonymous said...

To my dear European friend,

As a Turkish national, I can understand if you don't want Turkey in the EU. However, what can be the ratinale behind blocking negotiations with Turkey, especially the topics about the individual freedom, democracy and human rights(such as Chapters 23 and 24 on fundamental rights, justice and home affairs)?

No matter what is the result of Turkey's EU process, Turkey will always be your neighbor. Isn't it also in your best interest to have a more democratic neighbor? I'm not even bringing how the EU's sincerity about praising values such as democracy and human rights will be questioned by the Turkish youth, which by the way, will only help people who are against the European values.

I will see you my European friend, in Berlin, in Istanbul, in New York, in Shanghai or in Dubai and I'm hoping that I will be able to believe you as we talk about democracy and human rights as universal values.

Mehmet

Anonymous said...

Turkey deserved the right to join EU long ago.Should EU block her now , new generation modern Turks will be lost forever since Turkish politicians do well to make them believe EU is unreliable and will never let Turkey be a member of the union.

Isik O said...

You claim this is the time for the EU to bring Turkey into the European fold even more. But surely you realize this would only be interpreted as a political success by the AKP? After years of stalled negotiations, what kind of message do you think it would send to Turkey's true democrats that in the midst of such protests, the EU chooses now, of all times, to open new accession chapters? It amounts to nothing more than rewarding a spoiled child!

Erdogan's biggest claim for victory is that his party has provided economic growth and political stability. We need to demonstrate that that is not the case: suspend trade agreements with Turkey and condemn his authoritarian clampdown. Let's see how long he lasts once Turkey's business community withdraws their support as they see the hole Erdogan is dragging the country into widen.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for a neat recap and analysis of the Gezi Park protests. I would like to add some information regarding CHPs position.
The movement started independent from CHP as people unilaterally joined crowds at the evening of 31 May and on 1 June because they believed it was the right thing to do in order to show their dissatisfaction with the government and its definition of democracy.
On first of June, as the crowds have gotten bigger and bigger, CHP decided to have a rally in Kadikoy (at the asian side of Istanbul, far away from Gezi Park). This plan was not welcome at all by the protesters at Gezi Park because many believed that this was an attempt to hijack and take political advantage of the movement which did not start with the leadership of CHP or any other political party. People at Gezi Park expressed their disappointment with CHPs plan to rally at Kadikoy and instead asked everyone (including CHP) to continue gathering at Gezi Park. CHP was fast to reevaluate its position and decided to cancel the rally in Kadikoy and gather at Gezi Park.
I personally think that this was a good move as otherwise people participating independently in the resistance would see CHPs move as an opportunistic one and this would lessen their popularity within the demonstrators. At Gezi Park there were many people holding signs along the lines "This is not the demonstration of a political party, this is an independent civil resistance".
In the days that followed, while CHP suporters and leadership personally supported the movement, they have been careful not to involve CHP institutionaly due to reasons above. This was important as in the end (or as a next step) the demands of the demonstrators will have to be expressed in a political form at which point a CHP in a warmer relationship with Gezi Park may prove more valuable.

S.Y., PhD

Anonymous said...

While Heather Grabbe's article is a nearly accurate assesment of the social developments in one portion (perhaps 50%) of the Turkish society it fails to diagnose the chronic disease (i.e the "sickman of Europe") in the other half, specifically Islam's claim to dominate the worldly affairs of governence. Whereas the secularist members of the Turkish society demand that sovereignty belongs to humans (i.e the people) Erdogan and his crew claim that it belongs to God, and that his gang are God’s representatives at least here in Turkey, not unlike the claims of Iranian mullahs. Unfortunately the West has been either missing this point or regarding this archaic notion as just another valid political opinion! This is very dangerous. We have witnessed this danger in the case of the so called “Arab Springs”. The West extended so much undeserved credit to such movements that nearly all of the Middle East is now turning into religious monarchies under the disguise of “democracies”. The West’s obession with democracy and its imposition of it on societies not ready for democracy has led to “elected tyrants” at the expense of accidentally well educated contemporary intellectuals in such societies. Dominance of ignorance and its rule in underdeveloped dictatorships are perhaps beneficial to the West for obvious reasons, but up to a point. At that point the principle of “diminishing returns” goes into effect. That is, the more the West supports the ignorant tyrants in these underdeveloped countries the less it will get back. Consider the tyrants in South America, the Carrebean, Iraq, Iran, The Arabian peninsula, the far East (Indonesia, Philippines), and finally North Africa, the Middle East and Turkey. It was a mistake on the part of EU to give the opportunity to a religious fascist government in Turkey the chance to make the propaganda to its people that EU will allow Turkey enter the EU. How could this be when hundreds of the most precious innocent people of Turkish citizens are decaying in dungeons throughout the country? Would some economic success justify such inhuman practices? Would not Europe degrade its own values if it admitted Turkey to the EU?
Heather Grabbe suggest at some point in this article that Europe should reward the Turkish society without rewarding Erdogan’s government. I do not know how this will be possible. If the EU opens further chapters of accession this will so much please Erdogan’s government (especially the arrogant Egement Bagis) that they will interpret this as EU’s falling on its knees to keep good relations with Turkey. On the other hand punishment is also a part of the training process isn’t it?

Anonymous said...

While Heather Grabbe's article is a nearly accurate assesment of the social developments in one portion (perhaps 50%) of the Turkish society it fails to diagnose the chronic disease (i.e the "sickman of Europe") in the other half, specifically Islam's claim to dominate the worldly affairs of governence. Whereas the secularist members of the Turkish society demand that sovereignty belongs to humans (i.e the people) Erdogan and his crew claim that it belongs to God, and that his gang are God’s representatives at least here in Turkey, not unlike the claims of Iranian mullahs. Unfortunately the West has been either missing this point or regarding this archaic notion as just another valid political opinion! This is very dangerous. We have witnessed this danger in the case of the so called “Arab Springs”. The West extended so much undeserved credit to such movements that nearly all of the Middle East is now turning into religious monarchies under the disguise of “democracies”. The West’s obession with democracy and its imposition of it on societies not ready for democracy has led to “elected tyrants” at the expense of accidentally well educated contemporary intellectuals in such societies. Dominance of ignorance and its rule in underdeveloped dictatorships are perhaps beneficial to the West for obvious reasons, but up to a point. At that point the principle of “diminishing returns” goes into effect. That is, the more the West supports the ignorant tyrants in these underdeveloped countries the less it will get back. Consider the tyrants in South America, the Carrebean, Iraq, Iran, The Arabian peninsula, the far East (Indonesia, Philippines), and finally North Africa, the Middle East and Turkey. It was a mistake on the part of EU to give the opportunity to a religious fascist government in Turkey the chance to make the propaganda to its people that EU will allow Turkey enter the EU. How could this be when hundreds of the most precious innocent people of Turkish citizens are decaying in dungeons throughout the country? Would some economic success justify such inhuman practices? Would not Europe degrade its own values if it admitted Turkey to the EU?
Heather Grabbe suggest at some point in this article that Europe should reward the Turkish society without rewarding Erdogan’s government. I do not know how this will be possible. If the EU opens further chapters of accession this will so much please Erdogan’s government (especially the arrogant Egement Bagis) that they will interpret this as EU’s falling on its knees to keep good relations with Turkey. On the other hand punishment is also a part of the training process isn’t it?