Turkey: Paving the path for Erdogan’s autocratic rule

Turkey’s parliamentary commission recently cleared the path for constitutional amendments to extend the powers of the president, signaling the autocratic direction that current President Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants to take the country, a direction that was long suspected and feared by many. A final vote on the bill is expected early this year.

Although after a short-lived period of economic prosperity, a decline in freedom and democracy along with an increase of human rights violations became evident during his administration, the country’s struggles had started long before Mr. Erdogan came to power in 2003. To really understand the fragility of her democracy, one has to put into perspective the environment in which the country was first founded by the visionary Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1923 and the (lack of democratic) developments that occurred since.

{mosads}Atatürk’s Legacy: Authoritarian Rule Or Democracy?

Kemal Atatürk helped abolish the Ottoman Sultanate. Introducing a secular republic, he became the president of the newly founded country. He was a military man who was very fond of western principles many of which he introduced in Turkey. His reforms included the emancipation of women, abolishing the veil and all Islamic institutions, introducing separation of state and religion, the western legal and dress code, changing the alphabet from Arabic to Latin and changing the calendar. He successfully and quickly introduced much progress, however, while doing so, also compromised many democratic values. While establishing the national state, he cracked-down on minorities and opposition, and limited the freedom of speech and the press. His was a one party rule that lasted beyond his death until 1950.

Turks embraced the reforms that he introduced quickly and from top down.  They adapted extraordinarily swiftly to major changes such as the sudden conversion of their alphabet from Arabic to Latin script. However, after his passing, instead of expanding on Atatürk’s vision and improving the democratic state, Turks created a personality cult around the leader. They made it taboo to critically discuss Atatürk and his legacy. Subsequently, there was little opportunity to learn and grow from past mistakes. In effect, the country chose to continue his legacy of authoritarianism instead of expanding on his progressive vision.

A critical discussion about Atatürk only started to happen after Erdogan came to power. However, any glimpse of hope that the discourse would lead to more freedom and democracy was short-lived as it only created the usual black and white fronts. Any differing opinions quickly met with animosity from both sides and associated fear of retaliation discouraged furthering of a productive dialogue among the population.

Secularist Elitism Versus Freedom Of Religion

As the authoritarian tradition of Atatürk continued, the country became militantly secularized. Even though primarily an Islamic country, freedom of religion was widely denied to Muslims. Two main groups formed as a result of it: the secularized/ Atatürk elites represented by the military and the Turks who wanted to exercise their religion.

Atatürk supporters didn’t seem to question that of all groups, the military became the trusted force that kept up Turkey’s secularized democracy by staging coups in the country or influencing civilian rule otherwise; similar to Erdogan supporters today who don’t seem to have a problem with his out-of-control crack-down on opponents and the press. It must be noted however, that Turkey’s military has been unique in that after stabilization of the country, it voluntarily handed out the power to civilian rule. Nevertheless, its role in stabilizing the country should have raised more suspicion and subsequent pro-active stabilization efforts followed. However, an environment where status-quo of free speech can change any time and consequences of speaking one’s mind can be detention, imprisonment, or terrorism charges, as it has historically been the case in Turkey, makes it difficult for anyone to stimulate much needed changes.

Ensuring National Unity Through Crack-Down On Minorities?

Besides her struggles with free speech and secularization versus freedom of religion conflict, Turkey also has historically had issues with dealing with its minorities. The default course of action has traditionally been to limit the rights of minorities or deny their existence altogether. As if diversity would vanish through oppression and denial, so that Turkey can finally become some sort of a homogenous state and national unity would be guaranteed; as if diversity, and not the constant attempt to oppress, was the real threat to Turkey’s unity.

Mr. Erdogan initially signaled the much needed positive changes in regard to dealing with minorities, particularly affecting the two major groups, the Alevis and the Kurds. He led an Alevi opening and extended rights of Kurds to speak and broadcast in their language. However, his reforms were short-lived as his administration continues to deny equal rights to Alevis and cracks-down on Kurdish media.

A Dim Future For Freedom And Democracy?

In view of the recently failed military coup and the increasing ISIS threat that offers an excellent justification for Erdogan to increase his crack-down on free speech and human rights, the future of freedom and democracy in Turkey looks more dim than ever. However, Erdogan’s power is not limitless. As Turkey strives to join the European Union and demands respect from the international community, many citizens in the country and abroad are standing up against Erdogan and risking their safety and lives for freedom and democracy.

Only time will tell which way this fragile country will finally sway—autocratic regime or a true democracy.

Alev Dudek is a German-American analyst and author of Turkish descent. As an established scholar in diversity, she served on the executive board of the International Society for Diversity Management in Berlin as well as the City of Kalamazoo Community Relations Board. Alev received The National Security Education Program (NSEP) award in 2014.

The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.