The strong PM at his weakest

 22 Jun 2013 - 0:00

By Steven A Cook

As with Erdogan’s rally in the capital, Ankara, the day before, the people who turned out here, many of whom were decked out in scarves, T-shirts, and masks supporting the prime minister, vastly outnumbered the Gezi Park protesters who have captured global headlines. 

Young, old, well-to-do, decidedly modest, religious, and secular all declared their devotion to the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Erdogan. When the prime minister surveyed the 295,000 souls who had come to express their devotion and thundered, “Taksim Square is not Turkey!” it was a vindication of his vision, his economic policies, and the strength of his leadership. Yet the irony was that at Kazlicesme, Erdogan’s demonstration of strength revealed his profound weakness and political vulnerability.

Nothing reinforced the wholesome values of Erdogan and his constituency more than the pedestal upon which the policemen were placed at the Kazlicesme rally. 

At the centre of the city, where the black-clad and helmeted riot police were busy expending copious amounts of tear gas against their fellow Turks, the AKP rally was a law-and-order love fest. When police moved about on the streets adjacent to the site, the throngs parted ways and cheered for them. Young officers who had been brought into Istanbul for the event could not help but blush. 

The cops were relaxed, even chit-chatty. Unlike their colleagues who were engaged in a pitched battle in and around Istiklal Street at about the same time, the biggest problem for the police at the AKP rally was helping two foreigners find an outlet to recharge dying or dead iPhones.

Of course, Erdogan has become the sun around which Turkish politics revolves in part because his formal, parliamentary opposition has nothing to offer Turks. One of the many ironies of the last three weeks has been the indignation of the opposition Republican People’s Party over the prime minister’s authoritarian drift. 

One of the prime minister’s great accomplishments — and a source of his mystique in Europe and the US during his early years in power — was his efforts to forge a Turkey that was (all at the same time) more Muslim, more European, and more democratic without losing that fiercely held sense of “Turkishness.” 

For other politicians, the contradictions in this would be too difficult to manage politically, but not for Erdogan. What better agent of change than the physically imposing, wear-his-emotions-on-his-sleeve, confident embodiment of the new Turkish man to bring the country out of its self-imposed insularity. 

Erdogan held out hope that the debilitating war over Turkish identity that had been at the heart of the country’s political drama since the republic’s founding might come to an end, and he rode a broad coalition of Turks back to power in 2007, and again in 2011.

The first (and until Gezi Park, the only) political crisis of Erdogan’s tenure came in the late spring of 2007, when the prime minister appealed to democracy, a sense of fairness, and widely shared sentiments about a new Turkey — giving him a victory over the military, which had sought to block Abdullah Gul from becoming president. There were many Turks who were deeply worried that having a president from Turkey’s Islamist party would alter the country irrevocably, but Erdogan appealed to the Turks’ collective better angels. This was the Turkish leader at his zenith.

Almost exactly six years later, Erdogan has done the exact opposite, summoning the worst instincts of Turkish political culture and sharpening its divide. This strategy — identifying your opponents as extremists, “marginals,” and/or foreign agents — is the hallmark of leaders who have lost the ability to reach the kind of broad constituencies that assure political success. 

Slashing and burning as Erdogan has been doing shores up the base and suggests that he is still very much in command, but at a significant price. The destruction of the squatter camp in Gezi Park last Saturday night was an awesome show of force, but not of political power. 

A secure leader would have let the park become a smelly mess until the hippie-dippies who took it over drifted away. Yet for Erdogan, every day that the protesters were out in the streets was a festering reminder that not all Turks were buying what he and his party were selling, which held out the prospect that more and more people might join the demonstrators. Not necessarily in Gezi Park, but nevertheless join them politically.

Erdogan may not be in danger of losing an election, but he has sharpened the divides to such an extent that there are now two Turkeys — one that thinks he is evil and another that thinks he is benevolent. 

To keep the large numbers in the former camp in line, he will have to resort to authoritarian measures. Erdogan has already done an effective job intimidating the traditional Turkish media, but at great cost to journalists who have been openly mocked throughout the Gezi crisis. 

Now he has set his sights on social media. Early on, Erdogan referred to Twitter as a “menace” or a “curse.” Now his justice and interior ministers are teaming up to write regulations that would outlaw what the government considers provocative tweets. 

If there was ever an indication of a leader’s weakness, it is to try to roll back the freedom of expression that people have found online. Comparisons to Tahrir Square are met with visceral denunciations among AKP supporters and Egyptians who jealously guard their uprising, but Erdogan’s effort to control Twitter is reminiscent of Hosni Mubarak’s own failed campaign against bloggers, Facebook, and SMS text messaging. 

Erdogan has also engaged in the crude and absurd in an increasingly panicked effort to roll back open dissent. Turkish police rounded up about 100 activists in Istanbul, Ankara, and Eskisehir for instigating protests. The public prosecutor declared the possession of swim goggles — an innocent tool for protecting eyes from tear gas canisters and the toxic brew that comes out of police water cannons — to be an offence tantamount to terrorism.

 On Tuesday evening, the Interior Ministry announced that the original “Standing Man,” the performance artist Erdem Gunduz, might be charged with “resisting police without resistance.” 

When one adds to all this the increasingly unhinged pronouncements of government ministers about foreign plots, the American Enterprise Institute, “interest rate lobbies,” Jews, and the foreign media, a more complex picture of Turkish politics emerges in which leaders are in fear of losing command.

The fact that Erdogan is actually weak may come as a surprise to those who have felt his wrath, or be dismissed as wishful thinking among those who revere him. In the intensity of the past three weeks, it has not dawned on Turks why a leader who is allegedly so strong needs to call rallies of the party faithful — more are planned for the coming week in Kayseri, Erzurum, and Samsun — to prove that he is strong.

Turkey is at an interesting and high-stakes moment, but political activists seem to be waiting on the sideline for something to happen. Erdogan has, in an unintended way, given them a narrative with which to challenge him politically — something along the lines of “no to authoritarianism, yes to democracy.” But if they want to change the trajectory of Turkish politics, they should make haste, because the strong man is at his weakest now.

WP-BLOOMBERG

By Steven A Cook

As with Erdogan’s rally in the capital, Ankara, the day before, the people who turned out here, many of whom were decked out in scarves, T-shirts, and masks supporting the prime minister, vastly outnumbered the Gezi Park protesters who have captured global headlines. 

Young, old, well-to-do, decidedly modest, religious, and secular all declared their devotion to the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Erdogan. When the prime minister surveyed the 295,000 souls who had come to express their devotion and thundered, “Taksim Square is not Turkey!” it was a vindication of his vision, his economic policies, and the strength of his leadership. Yet the irony was that at Kazlicesme, Erdogan’s demonstration of strength revealed his profound weakness and political vulnerability.

Nothing reinforced the wholesome values of Erdogan and his constituency more than the pedestal upon which the policemen were placed at the Kazlicesme rally. 

At the centre of the city, where the black-clad and helmeted riot police were busy expending copious amounts of tear gas against their fellow Turks, the AKP rally was a law-and-order love fest. When police moved about on the streets adjacent to the site, the throngs parted ways and cheered for them. Young officers who had been brought into Istanbul for the event could not help but blush. 

The cops were relaxed, even chit-chatty. Unlike their colleagues who were engaged in a pitched battle in and around Istiklal Street at about the same time, the biggest problem for the police at the AKP rally was helping two foreigners find an outlet to recharge dying or dead iPhones.

Of course, Erdogan has become the sun around which Turkish politics revolves in part because his formal, parliamentary opposition has nothing to offer Turks. One of the many ironies of the last three weeks has been the indignation of the opposition Republican People’s Party over the prime minister’s authoritarian drift. 

One of the prime minister’s great accomplishments — and a source of his mystique in Europe and the US during his early years in power — was his efforts to forge a Turkey that was (all at the same time) more Muslim, more European, and more democratic without losing that fiercely held sense of “Turkishness.” 

For other politicians, the contradictions in this would be too difficult to manage politically, but not for Erdogan. What better agent of change than the physically imposing, wear-his-emotions-on-his-sleeve, confident embodiment of the new Turkish man to bring the country out of its self-imposed insularity. 

Erdogan held out hope that the debilitating war over Turkish identity that had been at the heart of the country’s political drama since the republic’s founding might come to an end, and he rode a broad coalition of Turks back to power in 2007, and again in 2011.

The first (and until Gezi Park, the only) political crisis of Erdogan’s tenure came in the late spring of 2007, when the prime minister appealed to democracy, a sense of fairness, and widely shared sentiments about a new Turkey — giving him a victory over the military, which had sought to block Abdullah Gul from becoming president. There were many Turks who were deeply worried that having a president from Turkey’s Islamist party would alter the country irrevocably, but Erdogan appealed to the Turks’ collective better angels. This was the Turkish leader at his zenith.

Almost exactly six years later, Erdogan has done the exact opposite, summoning the worst instincts of Turkish political culture and sharpening its divide. This strategy — identifying your opponents as extremists, “marginals,” and/or foreign agents — is the hallmark of leaders who have lost the ability to reach the kind of broad constituencies that assure political success. 

Slashing and burning as Erdogan has been doing shores up the base and suggests that he is still very much in command, but at a significant price. The destruction of the squatter camp in Gezi Park last Saturday night was an awesome show of force, but not of political power. 

A secure leader would have let the park become a smelly mess until the hippie-dippies who took it over drifted away. Yet for Erdogan, every day that the protesters were out in the streets was a festering reminder that not all Turks were buying what he and his party were selling, which held out the prospect that more and more people might join the demonstrators. Not necessarily in Gezi Park, but nevertheless join them politically.

Erdogan may not be in danger of losing an election, but he has sharpened the divides to such an extent that there are now two Turkeys — one that thinks he is evil and another that thinks he is benevolent. 

To keep the large numbers in the former camp in line, he will have to resort to authoritarian measures. Erdogan has already done an effective job intimidating the traditional Turkish media, but at great cost to journalists who have been openly mocked throughout the Gezi crisis. 

Now he has set his sights on social media. Early on, Erdogan referred to Twitter as a “menace” or a “curse.” Now his justice and interior ministers are teaming up to write regulations that would outlaw what the government considers provocative tweets. 

If there was ever an indication of a leader’s weakness, it is to try to roll back the freedom of expression that people have found online. Comparisons to Tahrir Square are met with visceral denunciations among AKP supporters and Egyptians who jealously guard their uprising, but Erdogan’s effort to control Twitter is reminiscent of Hosni Mubarak’s own failed campaign against bloggers, Facebook, and SMS text messaging. 

Erdogan has also engaged in the crude and absurd in an increasingly panicked effort to roll back open dissent. Turkish police rounded up about 100 activists in Istanbul, Ankara, and Eskisehir for instigating protests. The public prosecutor declared the possession of swim goggles — an innocent tool for protecting eyes from tear gas canisters and the toxic brew that comes out of police water cannons — to be an offence tantamount to terrorism.

 On Tuesday evening, the Interior Ministry announced that the original “Standing Man,” the performance artist Erdem Gunduz, might be charged with “resisting police without resistance.” 

When one adds to all this the increasingly unhinged pronouncements of government ministers about foreign plots, the American Enterprise Institute, “interest rate lobbies,” Jews, and the foreign media, a more complex picture of Turkish politics emerges in which leaders are in fear of losing command.

The fact that Erdogan is actually weak may come as a surprise to those who have felt his wrath, or be dismissed as wishful thinking among those who revere him. In the intensity of the past three weeks, it has not dawned on Turks why a leader who is allegedly so strong needs to call rallies of the party faithful — more are planned for the coming week in Kayseri, Erzurum, and Samsun — to prove that he is strong.

Turkey is at an interesting and high-stakes moment, but political activists seem to be waiting on the sideline for something to happen. Erdogan has, in an unintended way, given them a narrative with which to challenge him politically — something along the lines of “no to authoritarianism, yes to democracy.” But if they want to change the trajectory of Turkish politics, they should make haste, because the strong man is at his weakest now.

WP-BLOOMBERG