// archives


This tag is associated with 2 posts

Erdogan’s Dreams

8 June 2011

Erdogan’s Dreams

By Gwynne Dyer

Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is heading for its third election victory in a row on 12 June, and it is starting to suffer delusions of grandeur. Its election manifesto focuses not on the near future but on the year 2023, the hundredth anniversary of the Turkish Republic – as if it were confident of staying in power for the next dozen years. And its vision of Turkey’s future in 2023 is bold.

The party’s leader, Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan, has set a target of making Turkey one of the word’s ten largest economies by 2023. (The country currently has only the seventeenth biggest economy in the world.) To leapfrog all the countries in between, Turkey would have to triple its Gross Domestic Product over the next twelve years.

Average Turkish per capita income by 2023, AKP’s manifesto predicts, will be $25,000 a year, not far below that of Spain today. There are mega-projects, too: a Turkish space programme, an aviation industry that designs and builds aircraft from scratch, even a 50-km. (30-mi.) canal west of Istanbul that bypasses the crowded Bosphorus strait and connects the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.

To be fair, the AKP leader’s dreams have some basis in reality. Per capita income in Turkey is already about the same as in Russia or Romania, and it’s growing a lot faster. Even if the country is unlikely to reach the goals Erdogan has set by 2023, it will probably be more than half-way there by then. And it seems that Prime Minister Erdogan plans to be around to collect the credit.

The AKP manifesto also promises a new constitution, and almost everybody assumes that this would create a powerful executive presidency on the French model. (The office is currently largely ceremonial.) Then Erdogan, who says he will step down as party leader after this parliament, would run for president instead.

Turkish presidents are elected for up to two five-year terms, so if Erdogan won the new-style presidency in 2015 and retained his popularity, he would stand a fair chance of still being in office to preside over the anniversary celebrations in 2023. He’ll only be 69 then, so why not?

But to change the constitution, Erdogan doesn’t just have to win this month’s election. That is pretty much guaranteed: the polls currently give the AKP almost fifty percent of the votes in what is essentially a three-horse race. He actually has to win over two-thirds of the seats in parliament, which is a lot trickier, given Turkey’s unpredictable electoral system.

The key element in that system is that no party gets representation in parliament unless it wins at least 10 percent of the vote. Two parties, the AKP and the Republican People’s Party (CHP), regularly get many more votes than that. The third horse in the race, the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), sometimes clears the 10 percent threshold – and sometimes it doesn’t.

In 2002, the MHP got less than 10 percent of the vote, and so no seats in parliament. That allowed the AKP (centre-right and moderately Islamic) to win 66 percent of the seats in parliament although it only got 34 percent of the popular vote. All the other seats went to the CHP (left-of-centre and militantly secular).

Things were different in 2007. The MHP got 14.5 percent of the vote, and a comparable share of the 550 seats in parliament. The AKP raised its share of the popular vote to 47 percent, but it ended up with only 60 percent of the seats, well below that critical two-thirds majority. So it matters a great deal to Erdogan whether the MHP manages to stay in parliament after this election.

Two weeks ago it looked as if his dearest wish had been granted. A very slick video appeared on the internet showing ten – count them, ten – MHP members of parliament in deeply compromising circumstances with ladies who were not their wives. They all resigned, and most people assumed that the MHP, a conservative, “family values” sort of party, would be punished by the voters and crash out of parliament again.

Wrong. The last opinion poll in Turkey was published on the first of this month, and it showed the MHP still bouncing along with 11 percent of the vote. Maybe Turkish conservatives are less prudish than we thought. In which case Erdogan will not get his two-thirds majority and probably won’t be able to change the constitution.

Does this matter? Perhaps not, for he is still going to win the election, and he can always change his mind about retiring as the leader of the AKP after this parliament. But a lot of Turks still fear that he has a secret agenda to turn the country into an Islamic state. They are probably wrong, but they will sleep better if Erdogan doesn’t get to re-write the constitution.

In fact, maybe that’s why the MHP’s number are holding up so well despite the scandal. Turks know all about tactical voting.
To shorten to 725 words, omit paragraphs 3 and 6. (“Average…Mediterranean”; and “Turkish…not”)

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

Two Cheers for Democracy

7 November 2002

Two Cheers for Democracy

By Gwynne Dyer

One of the reasons that democracy is so rare in the swath of Muslim countries from Pakistan to Morocco is that both the local regimes and the United States are terrified that the Islamist extremists would come to power if there were free elections. Two recent elections seem to support that proposition.

Start with Turkey, whose voters have just given an Islamic party an overwhelming majority in parliament: 363 seats out of 550. Yet the leader of the victorious Justice and Development Party (AKP), Recep Tayyip Erdogan, cannot legally become prime minister, having been banned from running in the election because he has been convicted of inciting religious hatred.

In 1995, Erdogan proclaimed that “the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims are waiting for the Turkish people to rise up.” He did four months in jail in 1998 for reciting before an excited crowd an old poem with the lines “Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.” Secular Turkey has laws against that sort of talk in public, and the army acts against politicians who stray across the line if the courts won’t. But would it dare to remove a party that has just won almost two-thirds of the seats in parliament?

Cut to Pakistan, where last month’s parliamentary election was supposed to drape a democratic veil over the rule of General Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in 1999. The polling was clean by Pakistani standards, but the usual machinations before the vote delivered 77 seats to the newly created pro-military party, comfortably ahead of the 62 seats won by former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan :People’s Party (PPP). The only surprise was that the conservative tribal voters along the Afghan border gave 48 seats to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of six small Islamist parties.

Now Mrs Bhutto’s PPP has created the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy with 14 smaller parties — and has formed a coalition with the MMA that has a clear majority in parliament. If Musharraf doesn’t step in to stop him, Maulana Fazlur Rahman of the MMA, who once urged “holy war” against US President George W. Bush and regards the Taliban as his friends, may soon become prime minister of the world’s newest nuclear power.

That’s about it for democracy in the Middle East, apart from the gallant experiment in little Qatar and a few halfway-democratic countries like Iran and Jordan. It’s rare, it’s precarious, and it produces bad results. Or so it would seem.

Rare it is, and Pakistan’s democracy has always been precarious, but the ‘bad results’ accusation is just not true. The alliance between Mrs Bhutto and the Islamists was a purely tactical move to discredit the dictator’s election by forcing him to show his hand, and it has succeeded. On Thursday Musharraf postponed the opening of parliament by a week to give his own tame politicians of the Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid-e-Azam) — commonly known as ‘the king’s party’ — more time to put together an alternative coalition.

If Pakistan were to get real democracy, the PPP and the MMA would never be caught in bed together, nor would the radical Islamists ever win power in a free election. Pakistan’s problem is not democracy and it is not Islamism either. It is the corruption of the politicians, the ambition of the generals, and the sheer poverty and ignorance of so much of the population.

Turkey is a richer and better educated country with a much stronger democratic tradition, but the economy has been in deep trouble for a long time now, and at each national election for the past twelve years the voters have lurched in a different direction in a desperate search for a solution. Having run through all the other alternatives, they have now picked the ‘Islamic’ party, but Erdogan doesn’t have much room for manoeuvre, and he knows it.

The AKP’s almost two-thirds majority in parliament does not signify a massive wave of Islamist radicalism in Turkey. Only parties that get over ten percent of the vote actually win seats in the Turkish parliament, and in this election every other party was eliminated except the Republican People’s Party (founded by Ataturk himself in 1923), which got many extra votes from people who wanted to make a statement about secularism. So the AKP’s victory was won with less than a third of the popular vote — and polls suggest that only one in four AKP voters is actually a keen Islamist.

AKP supporters call themselves ‘Muslim democrats’, like the Christian Democrats who flourish in many European parliaments, and there is no reason to disbelieve them. Erdogan is determined to defend secularism, back the US alliance, and join the European Union — or at least he says he is, and that’s good enough, because he will be held to it by both the public and the army.

If ex-communists can turn into legitimate democratic leaders in Eastern Europe, then former radical Islamists can take the democratic road too. ‘Islamism’ is a political response to oppression, and can be profoundly anti-democratic. Islam is a religion, and entirely compatible with democracy. What the Middle East needs is more democracy, not less.


To shorten to 725 words, omit paragraph 10. (“The AKP’s….Islamist”) Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.