Myth and Rhetoric of the Turkish Model: Exploring Developmental Alternatives

173 Pages·2014·1.946 MB·English

by  Anita Sengupta (auth.)

Myth and Rhetoric of the Turkish Model
Map not to scale
Anita Sengupta
Myth and Rhetoric
of the Turkish Model
Exploring Developmental Alternatives
1 3
Anita Sengupta
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute
of Asian Studies
Kolkata
West Bengal
India
ISBN 978-81-322-1764-0 ISBN 978-81-322-1765-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-1765-7
Springer New Delhi Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013958151
© Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies (MAKAIAS) 2014
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connec-
tion with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered
and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permis-
sions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Centre. Violations are liable
to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publica-
tion does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publica-
tion, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors
or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Preface
On May 28, 2013, a call went out for people to defend the Gezi Park against bulldoz-
ers that had appeared overnight to uproot trees as a first step towards replacing the
park with a reconstruction of the historic Taksim Military Barracks demolished in
1940. The initial alert came from Taksim Solidarity, an umbrella platform that had
been organized to spearhead movements against transformation projects that charac-
terize the ruling Justice and Development Party’s ( Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi,AKP)
urban policy. This includes infrastructural projects like the third Bosphorus Bridge
and the Istanbul Canal and the privatization of formerly public spaces like the Gezi
Park. What began with a small group of people keeping watch over the trees rapidly
grew into round-the-clock occupation of the park with the number of people increas-
ing every day. When police used tear-gas and water cannons on the occupants and
set up barricades to keep them out, there was a wave of protest that was replicated in
sixty-seven cities from Ankara to Izmir, Adana and Hatay.
The makeup and content of the protests varied widely from city to city with dif-
ferent slogans and symbols. The millions of people who joined in the movement
were, however, united by a sense of frustration at the government’s reactions to a
range of issues and style of governance as well as anger at the disproportionate use
of force and the failure of mainstream Turkish media to cover it. The protests in-
volved the participation of people from a variety of ideological positions in Turkish
politics except for the supporters of the AKP themselves. The majority were middle
class and secular, but the participation of working class people, practicing Muslims,
environmentalists, and ethnic and religious minorities belied any attempt to charac-
terize this movement as “being organized by extremist elements” and lacking public
support. The positions and goals of the people participating in the demonstrations
were diverse and sometimes incompatible but the common spirit of resistance was
undeniable. The significance of the movement to “take back” the public space, the
alignment of dissent and the slogans built around the threatened trees has been
extensively debated in the social media, though it remains problematic to predict
what kinds of possibilities will emerge out of the movement. While entire areas of
Turkey’s big cities were brought to a standstill by the protests, it is unlikely that the
electoral picture will change drastically in the near future. However, what remains
undeniable is that the rhetoric of the Turkish Model, as an ideal for the Middle East
v
vi Preface
in the post–Arab Spring era, will be reconsidered as Turkey confronts the aftermath
of its own “Summer” of dissentions.
In all likelihood, the events signify the end of the decade of coexistence among
competing visions for Turkey’s future. This goes beyond the duality of secular ver-
sus religious inclinations, although it remains as the major fault line. Also at play
is resentment over visible disparities that have accompanied a sweeping increase in
overall prosperity. It is still too early to predict what kind of alternatives will emerge
and what impact the events will have on the forthcoming local and general elections,
the presidential elections, the new constitution process, the proposed presidential
system of government, the Kurdish initiative, domestic calculations and the bal-
ance of political parties, and the economy in Turkey. However, what is undeniable
is that the “Turkish Model” is once again at crossroads, at a juncture from where
various alternative futures are possible. Its identification as “secular, democratic,
and liberal” is at the heart of debates as it had been proposed as an alternative in the
post–Arab Spring Middle East. This is reminiscent of the era when the collapse of
the Soviet Union prompted speculations about Turkey’s geo-strategic significance
and a model was developed that asserted the significance of the Turkish experiment
for the post Soviet world. The argument was simple. Turkey, with the exception of
Israel, was the only country in the region that combined parliamentary democracy
with a market economy and was able to show significant growth rates. Referring
to the country’s Islamic heritage and its ethnic affinity with a large part of the post
Soviet states in the Caucasus and Central Asia, it was argued that Turkey was well
placed not only to act as a “model” for the countries but also as a bridge between the
“East” and the “West”. This was an argument that became prevalent not only within
Turkey but also in the international arena and it has been argued that it was aimed
primarily at strengthening Turkey’s negotiation with the international community,
particularly the European Union (EU). Certain parallels with the current scenario in
the Middle East are immediately discernable. A somewhat similar situation of “tran-
sition” is being predicted for the Middle East today with the “collapse” of the ruling
regimes. There is similarly a crisis in Turkey’s relations with the EU. The attraction
for the “Model” here is being projected in terms of a shared Ottoman past, though
the Arab world does not look upon this heritage without criticism.
This book argues that the Turkish Model was a myth that transferred the ideal of
a secular, democratic, and liberal society as a model for the post Soviet Turkic world
and in the process encouraged a “Turkic” rhetoric that emphasized connection be-
tween two regions based on common ancestry. It is an attempt at understanding
what the Turkish Model or Turkish Development Alternative was and why it was
promoted in the Central Asian Republics immediately following the dissolution of
the Soviet Union. It begins with an understanding of the reality of the Model from
a Turkish perspective and then goes on to examine whether the Turkish world as an
alternative makes sense both from a historical as well as contemporary perspective.
It concludes by looking into the reemergence of the Model in the wake of the events
in the Middle East since early 2011. It examines how in the light of a search for op-
tions the Turkish Model was once again projected as viable.
Preface vii
This study was done as a project for the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute of
Asian Studies, Kolkata. The author is grateful to the Institute for the support ex-
tended to her by the Institute for the completion of the project.
During the course of her research, the author had the privilege of academic
interaction with a number of scholars from various institutions in Turkey many of
who are not mentioned by name. The author remains obliged to all of them. The
author is particularly grateful to Pinar Akcali whose constant help and support dur-
ing the author’s research trip to Ankara made her stay pleasant and fruitful. She is
also grateful for the continuing interest that Dr Akcali has shown in her academic
endeavors. The author wishes to thank Mustafa Soykut and Anar Somuncuoglu
for their hospitality and assistance in Ankara. Mustafa Sen, Isenbeke Togan, Bursa
Ersanli, Cuneyt Akalin, Emre Ersen, Hasan Ali Karasar, Bayram Balci, Mustafa
Aydin, Guljanat Kurmangaliyeva, and Konuralp Ercilasun have helped with books,
advice, clarifications, conversations, and friendship over the years that the book
was being written. The author is also grateful to the Turkish Asian Centre for Stra-
tegic Studies (TASAM), Middle Eastern Technical University (METU), Ankara, the
Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul and its present Director Dr Birgit Schlyter,
and Maltepe University, Istanbul for invitations to workshops, events, and seminars
that allowed her to visit Turkey over the years. She has also used resources at the
METU and Bilkent University libraries and would like to thank the staff for their
assistance.
Parts of the study were presented in seminars organized by the Division of South
and Central Asian Studies, Stockholm University, Second Regional Conference of
the Central Eurasian Studies Society organized by the Centre for Black Sea and
Central Asia, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Third International Con-
gress on Turkic Civilization, organized by the Turkish International Cooperation and
Development Agency and the Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University, Centre for Turkic
Civilizational Studies, Bishkek, Indian Council for World Affairs, New Delhi, Centre
for Russian and Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi, Institute of Foreign Policy Studies, University of Cal-
cutta, and the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies. The author is
grateful for the comments and suggestions made by the participants of the seminar.
The author is grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their comments and
feedback that were very helpful in revising the manuscript. The author wishes to
thank Springer (India) and Shinjini Chatterjee, Senior Editor, Springer, for facilitat-
ing the publication.
The author remains grateful to Rajarshi for supporting her endeavours.
This book is for three generations of exceptional women—Nayantara, Paramita,
and Kana.
Contents
1 Political Dynamics in Eurasia: Background and Context
of the Turkish Model ................................................................................. 1
1.1 The Turkish Model .............................................................................. 3
1.2 Reorienting Geopolitics ...................................................................... 8
1.3 Eurasianism and the “Turkic” Rhetoric .............................................. 13
1.4 T he Model as a “Myth” ....................................................................... 19
References .................................................................................................... 22
2 What Is the “Turkish Model?” ................................................................. 25
2.1 The Turkish Model as a “Secular” Model ........................................... 26
2.2 The Turkish Model as a “Modern” Model .......................................... 33
References .................................................................................................... 48
3 Confronting the Past .................................................................................. 51
3.1 Reclaiming Ottoman-Russian Connections
and the Ottoman Legacy ..................................................................... 51
3.2 Identities and Linkages ....................................................................... 52
3.3 Some Debates on “Decline” and “Negation”:
The Ottoman Legacy ........................................................................... 57
3.4 T he Making of a “Modern” Identity ................................................... 64
3.5 Reemergence of pan-Turkism ............................................................. 68
References .................................................................................................... 72
4 Eurasianism or Neo-Ottomanism: The Neighborhood
in Turkish Foreign Policy .......................................................................... 75
4.1 From pan-Turkism to Eurasianism ...................................................... 79
4.2 From Eurasianism to Neo-Ottomanism .............................................. 87
References .................................................................................................... 99
ix
x Contents
5 The Central Asian Response to “Models” ............................................... 101
5.1 The Emergence of the Republics and Relations with Russia .............. 102
5.2 “Eastern Turkestan,” Kitaiskiy Bazaars, and Central Asian
Response to China ............................................................................... 108
5.3 Central Asian Reactions to Turkey and the Turkish Model ................. 115
5.4 The Gülen Movement and Central Asia .............................................. 124
References .................................................................................................... 127
6 The Turkish Model at Crossroads ............................................................ 129
6.1 The Model Re-emerges … .................................................................. 135
6.2 And the Contradictions Continue … ................................................... 142
References .................................................................................................... 153
Select Bibliography .......................................................................................... 157