Politics of Islamism in Turkey: AKP Party Analyzed - Research Paper

Introduction

The purpose of this memorandum is to explore the political context of a policy area. Based on the examination of a particular policy of importance, this memorandum relies on the findings of a study by Cinar Menderes to show the state of politics in Turkey.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Cinar (2018) from Baskent University, Ankara Turkey, performed research concerning the politics of Islamism in the Middle East currently. In his study, he concluded that the AKP party is a political force to reckon with in Turkey. From his particular research, it is clear that there is universal support among politicians to move from moderation to de-moderation to deliver effective governance. For many years, Turkey's Justice and Development Party, AKP was believed to be necessary for ushering an era of moderate Islamism. However, in the present years, AKP reversed this course.

From the many violent protests of the Gezi in 2013 to the abortive coup and crackdown on the opposition, AKP according to Cinar has lost all semblances for moderate Islamism (Cinar, 2018). If the party was truly moderated, how could they have transformed in a short time? And what are the factors that explain their radicalization? This policy memo is developed to argue that the specific benefits of moderation outweighed the costs by far thus making it hard to determine whether the actions of the party were genuine or just strategic. In this policy memo, there is also an argument that shows how AKP was involved in the process of radicalization which was determined by violent actions, anti-system and boycott demonstration since 2011. What propelled the party actions was the disappearance of international and local structural constraints leading swiftly to the radicalization of the party (Bashirov & Lancaster, 2018). Radicalization was further facilitated by a series of external shocks which threatened the primary goal of the party to gain hegemony causing them to radicalize.

A De-Moderation Policy Issue in Turkey's Political Arena

Much literature on political moderation assumes moderation to be a one-way street where one party moderates and another one remains indefinitely moderate. With such a policy in the most political field, de-moderation has been given less attention despite escalating incidences of the phenomenon. Behavioral de-moderation is usually a strategic policy that involves careful entrance of a party into electoral politics with an attempt to realize their goals through compromise and peaceful means. In behavioral de-moderation, democracy can always be considered as a means to an end to achieve not only the party's ideological goals but also the original political ideology of commitment. Most political environments usually transform from moderation due to internal and external pressures as it is the case in Turkey's political situation. The essence of the problem in Turkey's political environment is AKP's claim to be democratic yet one of its goals is to set itself free from universal principles and norms of democratic governance. However, their nativist democracy approach turned politics into a salvational mission which restored Turkey's identity with civilization. With a narrative that benefits a few individuals in Turkey's political environment, it is clear that Turkey needs a foreign policy of public investment and not just specific local initiatives and programs.

The Policy of Party Change

The complete findings of Cinar (2018) research reveal a shift in party policies from 'us' to 'me.' This memo looks at this change from the view of factors and conditions that caused the radicalization of the AKP party of Islamic politics. To respond to the query on the conditions and factors that led to APK party change, this memo utilizes Harmel and Janda's theory of party change (Harmel & Janda, 1994). Harmel and Janda improve on previous theories of party change to explain the conditions under which competitive parties decide to change their structures, rules, policies, and tactics. The theory by Harmel and Janda rests on the assumption that 'political groups are conservative organizations that might not transform simple for a change.' According to these theorists, parties change because of the many external and internal that the same authors claim to be the broadest and dramatic changes from external 'shocks.'

Outside factors could be social, political and economic events that happen outside the party. An external shock, on the other hand, could be an essential external event that the party depends on to achieve primary goals. According to Lancaster (2014), an external factor that led to a change of the party was the gradual transition of leadership to Erdogan. Erdogan who was the next party leader turned AKP into an organizational tool which diminished the party's ability to institutionalize democratic reforms and instead disestablish the establishments they had developed. The change of party politics was not only because the organization grew into a personalistic group, but the difference was also due to the new and charismatic leader who possessed a limited understanding of justice and democracy. Party members could have and should have insisted on a leader who was not only charismatic but one who understands the desires and need to stay within the objectives of democracy and justice (Radikal, 2004).

The Disappearance of Structural Constraints

From the moderation theory, behavioral de-moderation begins when ruling elites of a party initiate liberation allowing organizations that were banned politically to compete. While these actors that were banned politically continue to participate in structured politics, the behavior of those that are seeking democracy and justice is shaped by the incentives of continued participation opposition parties. Moderation is produced as a result of the combination of new structural participation and the strategic choices to involve banned parties. In the case of Turkey, for instance, the structural constraints were imposed by ruling parties, and the threat by the state also played a crucial role in having Islamists moderate their behavior (Somer, 2007). These structural constraints had local and international roots.

Locally, structural constraints rose from secular bureaucratic groups in the judiciary that traditionally maintained a Kemalist and temporary political order which prevented other groups from gaining substantial political grounds. When AKP rose to power in 2002, it was heavily pressured by the local structural forces of the judiciary, TAF and TCC who were very suspicious of their intentions of its Islamic characters. These intentions, therefore, caused the party to drop their Islamist past and embrace a more liberal and secular notion of democracy. In simple terms, these constraints were the beginning of a fall in internal structure because they affected the party's strategies and policies as well as their internal structure.

On the other hand, international constraints were borne from the EU accession process. However, since 2010, these set of constraints have disappeared gradually causing dire complication for AKP. While the EU accession was the goal of Turkey politics for a long time, the process made AKP remain static for many decades (Onis, 2016). In the political environment of Turkey, EU accession was very high among citizens, and therefore AKP needed to embrace this order to succeed in the elections. From the domestic and international constraints, it is clear that the AKP political transformation process was not a natural one but a consequence of poor leadership and a shrinking middle ground.

Explaining the Political Change in Turkey

The theory of party change by Harmel and Janda has been employed in this memo to help analyze the shift in strategy, tactics, and policies in political scenes. This theory has been used in the past to explain the moderation in religious groups and particularly Islamist parties of the Middle East. These same reasons could help the radicalization of AKP. To begin with, AKP was started as a hegemony-seeking party and this by nature was the party's primary goal and a mean to respond to external stimuli. In simple terms, the party as a ruling coalition will make changes when they see that change will advance party goals. Failure of the party to achieve its predetermined objectives, necessary changes will be induced with a design to make the organization achieve previously determined objectives. For instance, in the development by Harmel and Janda, there is a proposition that parties that are identified as vote seeking recorded electoral failures and the higher the likelihood of having them change. At this point, a tricky question that could be raised is 'what party is AKP'?

In the beginning, AKP was identified as a vote-seeking party, and this is by the nature of politics in Turkey. Parties that are out to seek votes do not have locked-in positions and policies but rather practice regular manipulations of systems, tactics, and strategies to maximize on votes. However, the fact that AKP was able to rise to a dominant position made them obtain a monopoly over Turkey's political environment and in the end exploit public resources to obtain personal benefits while hindering the growth of other political parties. With the focus on the AKP party, the political environment of Turkey can be considered similar to that of a monopolistic business environment.

While dominant parties like AKP remain in power, alternation of political environment is not ruled out because the party with the most votes wins while free and fair elections continue to be the order of the day. Therefore, it can be argued that since AKP became a dominant party, it has set out to seek hegemony with a primary goal of achieving political control. This is evident under the leadership of Erdogan who attempted to redefine Turkey politics with a different identity. With the acquisition of many votes, Erdogan tried to redefine Turkey politics not by incorporating democracy like it was supposed to be at the beginning but did so by picturing Turkey as a Muslim nation. What was clear at this time is that the objectives of the group were changed to replace democratization and instead bring back the populist strategy of Muslims in politics.

Classifying AKP as a hegemony-seeking party implies that while the political environment of Turkey focuses on maximizing on citizen votes, the individual parties such as AKP uses such a situation to overpower other parties in opposition. Just like the party, the leaders of such parties (as it is evident in the leadership of AKP) want to exercise complete control over the economic, social and political forces in the country. With the need to be hegemony seeking, AKP with the help of their leader developed existential insecurities meaning that the run the political environment of Turkey with an 'all-or-nothing' strategy and this is because of the fear of being overthrown from power. With this said, it can also be argued that the causal framework for political parties in Turkey is structured to provide background condition of particular behaviors but fails to determine a specific direction that party members and citizens should follow to achieve objectives. I believe that the reason for such an environment is external shocks which could occur at any time.

How Did the Disappearance of Local and International Constraints Impact AKP Success?

Moderation happens when parties begin to include organizations from the international context that impose or impede on their development. When structural constraints of an organization disappear, institutional con...