Erdoğan
pursues his plan for even greater power
Seizing
on post-coup popularity, the president ramps up the rhetoric to boost
a presidential referendum.
ISTANBUL — If
you’ve been listening to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan this past month,
you’d be forgiven for thinking the Turkish president was intent on
redrawing his country’s borders.
In a series of
provocative speeches, he has lamented the loss of Ottoman
territories, complained that Turkey “gave away” islands to
Greece, and invoked a century-old plan that included the Iraqi cities
of Mosul and Kirkuk in Turkey’s boundaries.
“We did not accept
the borders of our country voluntarily,” Erdoğan said in one of
his speeches. Yet while he has used this expansionist rhetoric to
argue that Turkey has a say in the ongoing battle for Mosul, his
target audience are not Greek or Iraqi officials. Rather, it’s
intended for potential voters back home — election talk ahead of a
looming referendum on the nature of his presidency.
Erdoğan’s
long-standing ambition to replace Turkey’s parliamentary system
with an executive presidency — a constitutional change that would
grant him significantly greater powers — is inching closer to
becoming reality. This month, ministers and officials began floating
a timeline, suggesting that a parliamentary vote could be held early
next year with a subsequent referendum in April.
Striking emotional
chords
After this summer’s
attempted coup, Erdoğan’s popularity has soared; a popular vote
may well succeed. Yet it remains uncertain whether his ruling Justice
and Development Party (AKP) will be able to shore up enough support
from other parties to reach the necessary parliamentary majority to
call a referendum.
Erdoğan still needs
to convince at least some of the party’s 40 MPs, however.
Politicians across
the otherwise deeply divided opposition parties object that the
introduction of a presidential system would allow the increasingly
authoritarian Erdoğan to rule Turkey unchecked.
The president’s
best bet is the nationalist opposition: Their leader, Devlet Bahceli,
signaled he would not challenge a plebiscite in recent weeks. If his
parliamentary group follows suit, the AKP could take their proposal
to a referendum.
Hence the
belligerent rhetoric. The talk of Turkey’s rights regarding parts
of Iraq and the Aegean islands plays well with the nationalists, who
often bemoan the territorial concessions made in the 1920s by the
crumbling Ottoman Empire.
“Erdoğan is a
savvy politician who understands very well the sort of emotional
chords of the Turkish public,” said Sinan Ülgen, a former Turkish
diplomat and visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe. “This is part of
an overall strategy to shore up national support that started in the
wake of the elections last June.”
Long-standing
ambition
Turkey’s
constitution requires the president to be neutral. But when Erdoğan
became the country’s first directly elected president in 2014,
after more than a decade as prime minister, he had no intention of
abdicating his powers.
In the run-up to the
general elections in June last year, he openly campaigned for the AKP
and appeared to be involved in the day-to-day affairs of state just
as he had been as head of government. To many voters, the election
became a referendum on Erdoğan’s plan for a stronger presidency.
In order to pass a
constitutional change via a plebiscite, the Turkish government needed
to win the support of at least 330 MPs in the 550-member parliament.
Yet in the June elections, the AKP not only failed to reach this
number — the party lost its majority for the first time since
rising to power in 2002.
After efforts to
build a coalition government failed, a rerun was scheduled for the
following November. Hoping to win back lost votes, Erdoğan ramped up
the rhetoric accordingly: amid a resurgent conflict with Kurdish
militants and a downturn in the economy, he cast a strong presidency
as a prerequisite for stability in Turkey.
Meanwhile, in an
attempt to appeal to nationalists, his government opted for a violent
crackdown on restive Kurdish towns while demonising the pro-Kurdish
opposition as terrorist supporters.
Young women protest
the failed coup attempt in Izmir, Turkey. In Europe, Erdoğan’s
enduring popularity mystifies most politicians, but Turks credit him
as the man that ended the military’s influence on politics
Fighting words
The strategy worked:
in November, the AKP regained its majority, but remained 14 seats
short of the 330 required to call a referendum. Erdoğan now needed
to woo just over a dozen opposition MPs, but that was easier said
than done.
The main opposition
refused to grant the president greater powers, and while the
pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democracy Party (HDP) had once been speculated
to be the most likely to support a referendum, its leader Selahattin
Demirtas had recently declared his unequivocal opposition to Erdoğan.
That left the nationalists.
Bahceli, the leader
of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), repeatedly denounced
Erdoğan’s ambitions. Yet since the failed coup, Bahceli has
increasingly sided with the president, cheering the government’s
sweeping crackdown.
And this month, he
performed a volte-face, suggesting that he would back a referendum:
“The MHP is in favour of the continuation of the parliamentary
system but also does not see a problem in asking the people their
view,” he said.
“If the AKP brings
its plans to parliament and takes into account our principles and
sensitivities, I believe a reasonable outcome will be achieved.”
Not a done deal
Erdoğan still needs
to convince at least some of the party’s 40 MPs, however. “I’m
not convinced that there will be enough support in parliament to pass
the threshold,” said Ülgen of Carnegie Europe. “It’s not a
done deal.”
His rhetoric may
score well with a domestic audience but it has caused consternation
among Turkey’s neighbours.
And even if it
passes in parliament, Erdoğan will have to convince the Turkish
public. In the past, polls have shown that less than half of voters
support introducing a presidential system, but the failed coup has
boosted Erdoğan’s popularity.
“Erdoğan has
managed to introduce the idea that he is the only guy who can keep
the country together, that Erdoğan’s survival is essentially the
survival of the state of Turkey,” said Asli Aydintasbas, a fellow
at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
After the coup, she
noted, a new national mythos is taking hold — one that paints
Turkey as restoring its rightful place in the world after more than a
century in decline, recasting its post-Ottoman history as “an
effort by foreigners to keep Turkey down.”
In a recent speech,
Erdoğan complained that foreign powers were aiming “to make us
forget our Ottoman and Selcuk history,” reminding his audience that
the Ottoman Empire once covered large parts of the Middle East,
Europe and North Africa. “In 1914 our land covered 2.5 million
square kilometers, nine years later it fell to 780,000 square
kilometers,” he lamented.
Last week, he
repeatedly cited the Misak-i Milli, or National Pact — a plan made
in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire that would have seen parts of
northern Iraq included in its territory — to argue that Turkey
should take part in the battle for Mosul, to which the government in
Baghdad is opposed.
“There’s no
doubt that part of the rhetoric is with the idea of the presidential
referendum in mind,” Aydintasbas said. “This will be his campaign
pledge — expanding Turkey, saying ‘why should we settle for
something less than we deserve.’”
His rhetoric may
score well with a domestic audience but it has caused consternation
among Turkey’s neighbours. Greece was not amused when Erdoğan said
Turkey had “given away islands” under the Treaty of Lausanne, and
the president’s talk has fuelled tensions with Iraq.
It is a price he is
willing to pay, said Ülgen. If his referendum succeeds, “he will
be the unavoidable partner for the international community wanting to
deal with Turkey,” he added. “That’s the basic calculation
Erdoğan has made, and so far it has not proven to be very far off
the mark.”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário